THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS — — — — THE 1:1, 7.* Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle, gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself also divinely called. 1Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called by divine summons as much as any member of the original Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God’ s message of salvation; 7Paul, so authorized and commissioned, gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be yours! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! 1:2-6. I preach, in accordance with our Jewish Scriptures, Jesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose commission I bear. 2The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ. 3It relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold aspect; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage to David, as the Messiah was to do, 4and on the other hand, in virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew’ s Messiah, and the Christian’ s Lord. 5And it was through Him that I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of God’ s favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the special gifts of an Apostle. 6My duty as an Apostle is among all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him; and the end to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy Name. 1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, (iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites them. The leading points in the section may be summarized thus: (i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God (vv. 1, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vv. 6, 7). (iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which it fulfils and supersedes . (iv) Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God (vv. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7). This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the old. We have to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (2) that in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point at the end of the paragraph. 1. δοῦλοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ : δοῦλοςΘεοῦ or Κυρίου is an Old Testament phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards (Amos 3:7; Jeremiah 7:25 and repeatedly; Daniel 9:6; Ezra 9:11); also with slight variations to Moses (θεράπων Joshua 1:2), Joshua (Joshua 24:29; Jude 1:2:8), David (title of Psa_36. [35]; Psa_78. [77], 70; 89. [88], 4, 21; also παῖςκυρίου , title of Psa_18. [17]), Isaiah (παῖς Isaiah 20:3); but applied also to worshippers generally (Psa_34. [33], 23; 113. [112], 1 παῖδες ; 136. [135], 22 of Israel, &c.). This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament; it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., showing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of the Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of His own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . A small question of reading arises here, which is perhaps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the opening verses of most of St. Paul’ s Epistles the MSS. vary between ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ and ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ . There is also evidently a certain method in the variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other):— 1 Thessalonians 1:1 ἸησοῦΧριστῷ unquestioned. 2 Thessalonians 1:1 ἸησοῦΧριστῷ Edd.; ΧριστῷἸησοῦ D E Fgr G, Ambrstr. (sic ed. Ballerini). Galatians 1:1 ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ unquestioned. 1 Corinthians 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ B D E F G 17 al. pauc., Vulg. codd., Chrys. Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., WH. marg. 2 Corinthians 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א B M P 17 marg., Harcl., Euthal. cod. Theodrt. Tisch. WH. RV. Romans 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ B, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis (contra Orig.-lat. bis) Aug. semel Amb. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg. Philippians 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א B D E, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV. Ephesians 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ B D E P 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Harcl., Orig. (ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. Colossians 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א A B F G L P 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. al., Tisch. WH. RV. Philemon 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א A Dc F G K P (def. B), &c., Boh., Hieron. (ut vid.) Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV. 1 Timothy 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א D F G P (def. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV. 2 Timothy 1:1 ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א D E F G K P (def. B) 17 al., Vulg. codd. Boh. Sah. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV. Titus 1:1 ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ א Dc E F G &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) al., Tisch. WH. (sed Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ ] marg.) RV.; ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ A minusc. tres, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Cassiod.; Χριστοῦ tantum Dg2. It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chronological order, those at the head of the list read indubitably ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit., which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ . Just about the group 1 and 2 Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of doubt. Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul., it looks as if the evidence for χυιυ in Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western; but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be right. In any case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul fell into the habit of writing ΧριστὸςἸησοῦς . The interest of this would lie in the fact that in ΧριστὸςἸησοῦς the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a proper name than in ἸησοῦςΧριστός . No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly passing into a proper name, but Χριστός would seem to have a little of its sense as a title still clinging to it: the phrase would be in fact transitional between Χριστός or ὁΧριστός of the Gospels and the later ΧριστὸςἸησοῦς or Χριστός simply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 289 f., and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, i. 386 ff.). The subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. κλητὸςἀπόστολος . κλῆσις is another idea which has its roots in the Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an express Divine summons. The typical examples would be Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), Moses (Exodus 3:10), the prophets (Isaiah 6:8, Isaiah 6:9; Jeremiah 1:4, Jeremiah 1:5, &c.). The verb καλεῖν occurs in a highly typical passage, Hosea 11:1 ἐξΑἰγύπτουμετεκάλεσατὰτέκναμου . For the particular form κλητός we cannot come nearer than the ‘ guests’ of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:41, 1 Kings 1:49). By his use of the term St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been ‘ called’ expressly by Christ (Mark 1:17; Mark 2:14 ||). The same combination κλητὸςἀπόστ . occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:1, but is not used elsewhere by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way to Damascus, cf. also Acts 26:17) with that of the elder Apostles. On the relation of κλητός to ἐκλεκτός see Lft. on Colossians 3:12. There is a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels κλητοί are all who are invited to enter Christ’ s kingdom, whether or not they accept the invitation; the ἐκλεκτοί are a smaller group, selected to special honour (Matthew 22:14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the same persons; κλητός implies that the call has been not only given but obeyed. ἀπόστολος . It is well known that this word is used in two senses; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord Himself to the Twelve (Luke 6:13; Mark 3:14 v. l.), and a wider in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Acts 14:4,Acts 14:14) and probably James, the Lord’ s brother (Galatians 1:19), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), and many others (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; Didaché 11, 12, &c.; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff.; Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 111 ff.). Strictly speaking St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider acceptation of the term; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is κλητὸςἀπόστολος , i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing such qualifications as are described in Acts 1:21, Acts 1:22, but through a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. ἀφωρισμένος : in a double sense, by God (as in Galatians 1:15) and by man (Acts 13:2). The first sense is most prominent here; or rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commission may enable us to understand how there is room for free will even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by God (see below on ch. 11). And yet the three terms, δοῦλος , κλητός , ἀφωρισμένος , all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own. This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books: it is found also in Assump. Moys. i. 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. εἰςεὐαγγέλιονΘεοῦ . The particular function for which St. Paul is ‘ set apart’ is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospel is sometimes described as ‘ of God’ and sometimes ‘ of Christ’ (e. g. Mark 1:1). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ‘ of God’ is the more appropriate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force of the gen. to one particular aspect : all aspects are included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and Christ. εὐαγγέλιον . The fundamental passage for the use of this word appears to be Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15 (cf. Matthew 4:23). We cannot doubt that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX (where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for ‘ the reward of good tidings’ ; the more common form is εὐαγγελία ). It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the rather frequent use (twenty times) of εὐαγγελίζειν , εὐαγγελίζεσθαι , especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. A conspicuous passage is Isaiah 61:1, which is quoted or taken as a text in Luke 4:18. The group of words is well established in Synoptic usage (εὐαγγέλιον , Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts two; εὐαγγελίζεσθαι , Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifteen). It evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in connexion with his own call to missionary labours (εὐαγγέλιον sixty times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice; εὐαγγελίζεσθαι twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of εὐαγγέλιον for a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 317 n.); the way is prepared for it by places like Mark 1:1; Revelation 14:6. 2. προεπηγγείλατο . The words ἐπαγγελία , ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι occur several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great ‘ promises’ made by God to His people. The first instance of this use is Ps. Sol. 12:8 καὶὅσιοικυρίουκληρονομήσαιενἐπαγγελίαςκυρίου : cf. 7:9 τοῦἐλεῆσαιτὸνοἶκονἸακὼβεἰςἡμέρανἐνᾗἐπηγγείλωαὐτοῖς , and 17:6 οἷςοὐκἐπηγγείλω , μετὰβίαςἀφείλοντο : a group of passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expectation in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of its own history foretold there. We notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been the historical sequence, neither ἐπαγγελία nor ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι (in the technical sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke 24:49, where ἐπαγγελία is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit; but we no sooner cross over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i) the promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which is referred to the Father in Acts 1:4); so ἐπαγγελία three times in the Acts, Galatians 3:14, and Ephesians 1:13; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Christianity; so ἐπαγγελία four times in Acts (note esp. Acts 13:32, Acts 26:6), some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both ἐπαγγελία and ἐπαγγέλλεσθα . repeatedly in Heb., &c.; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:20 ὅσαιγὰρἐπαγγελίαιΘεοῦ (cf. v. 1:1); 1 Timothy 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:1; 2 Peter 3:4 ἡἐπαγγελίατῆςπαρουσίαςαὐτοῦ . ἐνγραφαῖςἁγίαις : perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use of this phrase (Philo prefers ἱεραὶγραφαί , ἱεραὶβίβλοι , ὁἱερὸςλόγος : cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 72); but the use is evidently well established, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes back to the prologue to Ecclus. In γραφαῖςἁγίαις the absence of the art. throws the stress on ἁγίαις ; the books are ‘ holy’ as containing the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired men . 3. γενομένου . This is contrasted with ὁρισθέντος , γενομένου denoting, as usually, ‘ transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another’ (Sp. Comm. on 1 Corinthians 1:30); it is rightly paraphrased ‘ [Who] was born,’ and is practically equivalent to the Johannean ἐλθόντοςεἰςτὸνκόσμον . ἐκσπέρματοςΔαβίδ . For proof that the belief in the descent of the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mark 12:35 ff. πῶςλέγουσινοἱγραμματεῖςὅτιὁΧριστὸςυἱόςἐστιΔαβίδ ; (cf. Mark 11:10 and 10:47 f.): also Ps. Sol. 17:23 ff. ἴδε , κύριε , καὶἀνάστησοςαὐτοῖςτὸνβασιλέααὐτῶνυἱὸνΔαυὶδεἰςτὸνκαιρὸνὅνοἰδαςσύ , ὁΘεός , τοῦβασιλεῦσαιἐπὶἸσραὴλπαῖδάσουκ .τ .λ .; 4 Ezra 12:32 (in three of the extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums (passages in Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself appears to have made little use of this title: he raises a difficulty about it (Mark 12:35-37 ||). But this verse of Ep. to Romans shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one of the conditions of Messiahship; similarly 2 Timothy 2:8 ; Acts 2:30; Hebrews 7:14 ‘ it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah’ (see also Eus. H. E. I. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There is good reason to think that St. Luke 1:2 had assumed substantially its present shape before a.d. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 49). In Test. XII. Patriarch. we find the theory of a double descent from Levi and from Judah (Sym. 7 ἀναστήσειγὰρΚύριοςἐκτοῦΛευεὶὡςἀρχιερέακαὶἐκτοῦἸούδαὡςβασιλέα , Θεὸνκαὶἄνθρωπον : Gad. 8 ὅπωςτιμήσωσινἸούδανκαὶΛευεί · ὅτιἐξαὐτῶνἀνατελεῖΚύριος , σωτὴρτῷἸσραήλ , &c.; cf. Harnack’ s note, Patr. Apost. i. 52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). κατὰσάρκα̣̣̣κατὰπνεῦμα are opposed to each other, not as human` to ‘ divine,’ but as ‘ body’ to ‘ spirit,’ both of which in Christ are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding property of His Spirit is something more than human. See on κατὰπνεῦμ . ἁγιως . below. 4. ὁρισθέντος : ‘ designated.’ It is usual to propose for this word an alternative between (i) ‘ proved to be,’ ‘ marked out as being’ (δειχθέντος , ἀποφανθέντος Chrys.), and (ii) ‘ appointed,’ ‘ instituted,’ ‘ installed,’ in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the parallels are quoted, Acts 10:42 οὗτόςἐστινὁὡρισμένοςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦκριτὴςζώντωνκαὶνεκρῶν , and 17:31 μέλλεικρίνειν̣̣̣ἐνἀνδρὶᾦὥρισε . The word itself does not determine the meaning either way: it must be determined by the context. But here the particular context is also neutral; so that we must look to the wider context of St. Paul’ s teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 8:9; cf. Colossians 1:15-19). At the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference— if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cognisance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Philippians 2:9 διὸκαὶὁΘεὸςαὐτὸνὑπερύψωσε , καὶἐχαρίσατοαὐτῷτὸὅνοματὸὑπὲρπᾶνὄνομα ). This is sufficiently expressed by our word ‘ designated,’ which might perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses and proclaims that right. The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad loc.; cf. Introd. § 7). Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian reads definitus. υἱοῦΘεοῦ . ‘ Son of God,’ like ‘ Son of Man,’ was a recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2; 4 Ezra 7:28, 29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ‘ My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘ Son of God’ does not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Mat 27:43, John 10:36, cf. Matthew 21:37 f. al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mark 3:11, Mark 5:7 ||; the centurion, Mark 15:39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark 1:11 ||, 9:7 ||). The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, ‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Matthew 16:16. It is consistent with the whole of our Lord’ s method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spontaneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it surprising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ: see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mark 1:1 (where the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its strengthening addition μονογενής , may be followed in Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul regarded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation; and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as ὁἴδιοςυἱός (Romans 8:32), ὁέαυτοῦυἱός (8:3), he intends to cover the period of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the μονογενής with the pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, understood them differently. There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Psa 2:7 ‘ Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ They are (i) the Baptism (Mark 1:11 ||); (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark 9:7 ||); (iii) the Resurrection (Acts 13:33). We can see here the origin of the Ebionite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2 Corinthians 4:4, &c., ut sup.) and Johannean (John 1:1 ff.). The moments in question are so many steps in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his career as ψιλὸςἄνθρωπος . ἐνδυνάμει : not with υἱοῦΘεοῦ , as Weiss, Lips. and others, ‘ Son of God in power,’ opposed to the present state of humiliation, but rather adverbially, qualifying ὁρισθέντος , ‘ declared with might to be Son of God.’ The Resurrection is regarded as a ‘ miracle’ or ‘ signal manifestation of Divine Power.’ Comp. esp. 2 Corinthians 13:4 ἐσταυρώθηἐξἀσθενείας , ἀλλὰζῇἐκδυνάμεωςΘεοῦ . This parallel determines the connexion of ἐνδυν . κατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης : not (i) = ΠνεῦμαἍγιον , the Third Person in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), because the antithesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα requires that they shall be in the same person; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns (even Lid.) = the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature were coextensive with the σάρξ and the Divine Nature were coextensive with the πνεῦμα , which would be very like the error of Apollinaris; but (iii) the human πνεῦμα , like the human σάρξ , distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15 ‘ it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren.. yet without sin’ ). ἁγιωσύνη , not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Psalms 95:6 [96:6 ‘ strength’ ]; 96:12 [97:12 ‘ holy name,’ lit. ‘ memorial’ ]; 144:5 [145:5 ‘ honour’ ]). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; but in 2 Macc. 3:12 we have ἡτοῦτόπουἁγιωσύνη . In Test. XII. Patr. Lev_18 the identical phrase πνεῦμ . ἁγιως . occurs of the saints in Paradise. The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is so different from that in the text, that the presumption would be that it was not coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The πνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης , though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. § 39, 3). For ἁγιως . see on ἅγιοι ver. 7. ἑξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν : a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. His was not a ‘ resurrection of dead persons’ (‘ azenrisynge of dead men’ Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather νεκροῦ or ἐκνεκρῶν (as in 1 Peter 1:3); and it is probable that this form is only avoided because of ἐξἀναστάσεως coming just before. But νεκρῶν coalesces closely in meaning with ἀναστ ., so as to give it very much the force of a compound word, ‘ by a dead-rising’ (Todtenauferstehung), ‘ a resurrection such as that when dead persons rise.’ Christ is ‘ the first-born from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18). τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν . Although in O. T. regularly applied to God as equivalent of Adonai, Jahveh, this word does not in itself necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘ God’ ; they expressly distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ‘ Word’ of Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians Κροιος denotes the idea of ‘ Sovereignty,’ primarily over themselves as the society of believers (Colossians 1:18, &c.), but also over all creation (Philippians 2:10, Philippians 2:11; Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:17). The title was given to our Lord even in His lifetime , and, Lord : and ye say well; for so I am’ ), but without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central belief (Philippians 2:9 ff., &c.). 5. ἐλάβομεν . The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. χάρις is an important word with a distinctively theological use and great variety of meaning: (1) objectively, ‘ sweetness,’ ‘ attractiveness,’ a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Psa_45. (44.), 3 ἐξεχύθηχάριςἐνχείλεσίσου : Ecclesiastes 10:12 λόγοιστόματοςσοφοῦχάρις : Luke 4:22 λόγοιχάριτος : (2) subjectively ‘ favour,’ ‘ kindly feeling,’ ‘ good will,’ especially as shown by a superior towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal feeling on the part of the king or chieftain is most important: hence εὑρεῖνχάριν is the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Genesis 6:8; Genesis 18:3, &c.); in many of these passages (esp. in anthropomorphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy with man) it is used of ‘ finding favour’ in the sight of God. Thus the word comes to be used (3) of the ‘ favour’ or ‘ good will’ of God; and that generally, as in Zechariah 12:10 ἐκχεῶ̣̣πνεῦμαχάριτοςκαὶοἰκτιρμοῦ , but far more commonly in N. T. (Luke 2:40; John 1:14, John 1:16, &c.); by a usage which is specially characteristic of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to ὀφείλημα , ‘ debt’ (Romans 4:4), and to ἔργα , ‘ works’ (implying merit, Romans 11:6), ‘ unearned favour’ — with stress upon the fact that it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed not upon the righteous but on sinners (cf. esp. Romans 5:6 with 5:2). In this sense the word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. (4) The cause being put for the effect χάρις denotes ‘ the state of grace or favour’ which the Christian enjoys (Romans 5:2), or , like χάρισμα , any particular gift or gifts of grace (πλήρηςχάριτος Acts 6:8). We note however that the later technical use, esp. of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly to the usage of N. T. (5) As χάρις or ‘ kindly feeling’ in the donor evokes a corresponding χάρις or ‘ gratitude’ in the recipient, it comes to mean simply ‘ thanks’ (1 Corinthians 10:30). χάριν here = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all Christians and by virtue of which he is one; ἀποστολήν =the more peculiar gifts of an Apostle. We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as conferred upon him by Christ — we may add, acting through His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding from the Spirit (1Co_12, &c.). εἰςὑπακοὴνπίστεως : may be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum fidei provided that πίστ . is not hardened too much into the sense which it afterwards acquired of a ‘ body of doctrine’ (with art. τῇπίστει Jude 1:3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist: πίστις is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse of adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ‘ obey’ this impulse of the heart (Romans 10:10). From another point of view, going a step further back, we may speak of ‘ obeying the Gospel’ (Romans 10:16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is appropriated. See below on ver. 17. ἐνπᾶσιτοῖςἔθνεσιν . Gif. argues for the rendering ‘ among all nations’ on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the phrase πάντατὰἔθνη (cf. Genesis 18:18, &c.). But St. Paul’ s commission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8), and it is more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong to his special province (ver. 6), than to regard them merely as one among the mass of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which the word is used in ver. 13. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 21 f. ὑπὲρτοῦὀνόματοςαὐτοῦ . This is rather more than simply ‘ for His glory.’ The idea goes back to the O. T. (Psa_106. [105], 8; Ezekiel 20:14; Malachi 1:11). The Name of God is intimately connected with the revelation of God. Israel is the instrument or minister of that revelation; so that by the fidelity of Israel the revelation itself is made more impressive and commended in the eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel: and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation made of God in Christ (αὐτοῦ , cf. Acts 5:41; Philippians 2:9). 6. ἐνοἷς : not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish community among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church among Gentile communities. κλητοὶἸησοῦχριστοῦ : ‘ called ones of Jesus Christ’ : gen. of possession. 7. ἐν ʼ Ρώμῃ : om. G g, schol. cod. 47 (τὸἐν ʼ Ρώμῃοὔτεἐντῇἐξηγήσειοὔτεἐντῷῥητῷμνημονεύει , i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast had before him). G reads πᾶσιτοῖςοὖσινἐνἀγάπῃΘεοῦ (similarly d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply πᾶσιτοῖςοὖσινἐνῬώμῃἐνἀγάπῃΘεοῦ ). The same MS. omits τοῖςἐνῬώμῃ in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluctuating position of the final doxology, 16:25-27, would seem to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local references had been removed. It is however important to notice that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. 14 are quite different from those which omit ἐνῬώμῃ here and in ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, § 9. κλητοῖςἁγίοις . Κλητὴἁγία represents consistently in LXX the phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. ‘ an holy convocation’ (so eleven times in Lev_23 and Exodus 12:16). The rendering appears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in Heb. the phrase usually runs, ‘ on such a day there shall be a holy convocation,’ the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an adj. and make ‘ day’ the subject of the sentence, ‘ such a day (or feast) shall be κλητὴἁγία , i. e. specially appointed, chosen, distinguished, holy (day).’ This is a striking instance of the way in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its meaning, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously κλητοῖς has the same sense as κλητός in ver. 1: as he himself was ‘ called’ to be an Apostle, so all Christians were ‘ called’ to be Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which under the Old Covenant was attached to ‘ times and seasons.’ For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting κλητὴἁγία we are indebted to Dr. Driver:— κλητή corresponds to מ ִ ק ְ ר ָ א , from ק ָ ר ָ א ִ to call, a technical term almost wholly confined to the Priests’ Code, denoting apparently a special religious meeting, or ‘ convocation,’ held on certain sacred days. It is represented by κλητή , Exodus 12:16 b; Leviticus 23:7, Leviticus 23:8, Leviticus 23:27, Leviticus 23:35, Leviticus 23:36; Numbers 28:25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has ‘ on such a day there shall be a holy convocation.’ the LXX have ‘ such a day shall be κλητὴἁγία , ’ i. e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, and use κλητή with its proper force as an adj. ‘ shall be a called , holy(day)’ ; cf. κλ . in Il. ix. 165 and Romans 1:1. They read analogously with מ ִ ק ְ ר ָ א in Leviticus 23:2 αἱἑορταὶκυρίου , ἂςκαλέσετεαὐτὰςκλητὰςἁγίας (cf. 5:37), 21 καὶκαλέσετεταύτηντὴνἡμέρανκλητήν · ἁγίαἔσταιὑμῖν . In Leviticus 23:3 (cf. 5:24), κλητὴἁγία seems to be in apposition with ἀνάπαυσις . The usage of κλητή in Lev_23 is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to have the form of a subst. ; cf. ἐπίκλητος . This view of κλ . is supported by their rendering of מ ִ ק ְ ר ָ א elsewhere. In Exodus 12:16a, Leviticus 23:4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and render it by a verb, κληθήσεταιἁγία , and ἁγίαςκαλέσετε respectively. In Numbers 28:18, Numbers 28:26 (καὶτῇἡμέρᾳτῶννέων . … ἐπίκλητοςἁγίαἔσταιὑμῖν : similarly 29:1, 7, 12), they express it by ἐπίκλητος ib. 1:16; 26:9, for the ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of specially appointed . Isaiah 1:13 ‘ the calling of a convocation’ is represented in LXX by ἡμέρανμεγάλην , and 4:5 ‘ all her convocations’ by τἁπερικύκλῳαὐτῆς . From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term מ ק ר א , and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pronounced it not as a subst. מ ִ ק ְ ר ָ א , but as a participle מ ְ ק ֹ ר ָ א . ἁγίοις . The history of this word would seem to be very parallel to that of κλητοῖς . It is more probable that its meaning developed by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension from within outwards. Its connotation would seem to have been at first physical and ceremonial, and to have become gradually more and more ethical and spiritual. (1) The fundamental idea appears to be that of ‘ separation.’ So the word ‘ holy’ came to be applied in all the Semitic languages, (2) to that which was ‘ set apart’ for the service of God, whether things (e. g. 1 Kings 7:51 [37]) or persons (e.g. Exodus 22:31 [29]). But (3) inasmuch as that which was so ‘ set apart’ or ‘ consecrated’ to God was required to be free from blemish, the word would come to denote ‘ freedom from blemish, spot, or stain’ — in the first instance physical, but by degrees, as moral ideas ripened, also moral. (4) At first the idea of ‘ holiness,’ whether physical or moral, would be directly associated with the service of God, but it would gradually become detached from this connexion and denote ‘ freedom from blemish, spot, or stain,’ in itself and apart from any particular destination. In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself, and we find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e. g. 1 Samuel 6:20). And in proportion as the conception of God itself became elevated and purified, the word which expressed this central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more severe and awful purity, till at last it becomes the culminating and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired would be reflected back over all the lower uses, and the tendency would be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. This tendency is formulated in the exhortation, ‘ Ye shall be holy; for I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Leviticus 19:2, &c.). Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to the time when St. Paul made use of it. He would find a series of meanings ready to his hand, some lower and some higher; and he chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather midway in the scale. When he describes the Roman Christians as ἅγιοι , he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attributes of the All-Holy, but only that they are ‘ set apart’ or ‘ consecrated’ to His service. At the same time he is not content to rest in this lower sense, but after his manner he takes it as a basis or starting-point for the higher. Because Christians are ‘ holy’ in the sense of ‘ consecrated,’ they are to become daily more fit for the service to which they are committed (Romans 6:17, Romans 6:18, Romans 6:22), they are to be ‘ transformed by the renewing’ of their mind (Romans 12:2). He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as St. Peter, ‘ As He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (AV. conversation); because it is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy’ (1 Peter 1:15, 1 Peter 1:16). We note that Ps. Sol. had already described the Messianic people as λαὸςἅγιος (καὶσυνάξειλαὸνἅγιον , οὗἀφηγήσεταιἐνδικαιοσύνῃ 17:28; cf. Daniel 7:18-27; Daniel 8:24). Similarly Enoch ciii. 2; cviii. 3, where ‘ books of the holy ones = the roll of the members of the Kingdom’ (Charles). The same phrase had been a designation for Israel in O. T., but only in Deut. . We have thus another instance in which St. Paul transfers to Christians a title hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. But in this case the Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. There is a certain element of conjecture in the above sketch, which is inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. The instances above given will show this. The main problem is how to account for the application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures, both things and persons. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is that in the latter case it means ‘ separated’ or ‘ set apart’ for God, and in the former case that it means ‘ separate from evil’ (sejunctus ab omni vitio, labis expers). But the link between these two meanings is little more than verbal; and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God, whether in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch), is derivative rather than primary. There are a number of monographs on the subject, of which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Delitzsch in Herzog’ s Real-Encyklopä die, Exo_2, s. v. ‘ Heiligkeit Gottes.’ Instructive discussions will be found in Davidson, Ezekiel, p. xxxix. f.; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 132 ff., 140 (140 ff., 150 Exo_2); Schultz, Theology of the Old Testament, ii. 131, 167 ff. A treatise by Dr. J. Agar Beet is on a good method, but is somewhat affected by critical questions as to the sequence of the documents. There is an interesting progression in the addresses of St. Paul’ s Epp.: 1, 2 Thess. Gal. τῇἐκκλησίᾳ ; 1, 2 Cor. τῇἐκκλ . + τοῖςἁγίοις ; 1 Cor. Rom. κλητοῖςἁγίοις ; Rom. Phil. πᾶσιτοῖςἁγίοις ; Eph. Col. τοῖςἁγίοιςκαὶπιστοῖς . The idea of the local Church, as a unit in itself, is more prominent in the earlier Epp.; that of individual Christians forming part of the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent in the later. And it would be natural that there should be some such progression of thought, as the number of local churches multiplied, and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger perspective. It would however be a mistake to argue at once from this that the use of ἐκκλησία for the local Church necessarily came first in order of time. On the other side may be urged the usage of the O. T., and more particularly of the Pentateuch, where ἐκκλησία constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole people, as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matthew 16:13. But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. Rudolf Sohm’ s elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig, 1892) starts from the assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But just this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. χάριςκαὶεἰρήνη . Observe the combination and deepened religious significance of the common Greek salutation χαίρειν , and the common Heb. salutation Shalom, ‘ Peace.’ χάρις and εἰρήνη are both used in the full theological sense: χάρις = the favour of God εἰρήνη = the cessation of hostility to him and the peace of mind which follows upon it. There are four formulae of greeting in N. T.: the simple χαίρειν in St. James; χάριςκαὶεἰρήνη in Epp. Paul. (except 1, 2 Tim.) and in 1, 2 St. Peter; χάρις , ἔλεος , εἰρήνη in the Epistles to Timothy and 2 St. John; ἔλεοςκαὶεἰρήνηκαὶἀγάπη in St. Jude. εἰρήνη . We have seen how χάρις had acquired a deeper sense in N. T. as compared with O. T.; with εἰρήνη this process had taken place earlier. It too begins as a phrase of social intercourse, marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave place to overtures of friendship (Εἰρήνησοι Jude 1:19:20, &c.). But the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God and man (Psa_29. [28], 11 Κύριοςεὐλογήσειτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦἐνεῖρήνῃ : 85. [84], 8 λαλήσειεἰρήνηνἐπὶτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ : ibid. 10 δικαιοσύνηκαὶεἰρήνηκατεφίλησαν : 119. [118], 165 εἰρήνηπολλὴτοῖςἀγαπῶσιτὸννόμον : Isaiah 53:5 παιδείαεἰρήνηςήμῶνἐπ ʼ αὐτόν : Jeremiah 14:13 ἀλήθειανκαὶεἰρήνηνδώσωἐπὶτῆςγῆς : Ezekiel 34:25 διαθήσομαιτῷΔαυὶδδιαθήκηνεἰρήνης [cf. 37:26]. Nor is this use confined to the Canonical Scriptures: cf. Enoch v. 4 (other reff. in Charles, ad loc.); Jubilees i. 15, 29; xxii. 9; xxxiii. 12, 30, &c.; it was one of the functions of the Messiah to bring ‘ peace’ (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 362 f.). The nearest parallel for the use of the word in a salutation as here is Dan. 3:98 [31]; 4:34 (LXX); 3:98 [31]; 6:25 (Theodot.) εἰρήνηὑμῖνπληθυνθείη . ἀπὸΘεοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνκαὶΚυρίουἸησοῦχριστοῦ . The juxtaposition of God as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the proofs already supplied by vv. 1, 4, that St. Paul, if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, held a view which cannot really be distinguished from it. The assignment of the respective titles of ‘ Father’ and ‘ Lord’ represents the first beginning of Christological speculation. It is stated in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions in 1 Corinthians 8:6 ἀλλ ʼ ἡμῖνεἷςΘεὸςὁπατήρ , ἐξοὗτὰπάντα , καὶἡμεῖςεἰςαὐτόν , καὶεἷςΚύριοςἸησοῦςΧριστός , δι ʼ οὗτὰπάντα , καὶἡμεῖςδι ʼ αὐτοῦ . The opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen and the Christians’ God seems to show that ἡμῶν = at least primarily, ‘ us Christians’ rather than ‘ us men.’ Not only does the juxtaposition of ‘ Father’ and ‘ Lord’ mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ; it also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is found already some six years before the composition of Ep. to Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle (1 Thessalonians 1:1; cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:2). This shows that even at that date (a.d. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier (2 Corinthians 13:14). There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths. πατρὸςἡμῶν . The singling out of this title must be an echo of its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Psalms 68:5; Psalms 89:26; Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 31:9; Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:10); but there is usually some restriction of qualification— God is the Father of Israel, of the Messianic King, of a particular class such as the weak and friendless. It may also be said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained in the stress which is laid on the ‘ loving-kindness’ of God (e.g. in such fundamental passages as Exodus 34:6, Exodus 34:7 compared with Psalms 103:13). But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in the Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. It is placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of God. It takes however a two-fold ramification: ὁπατὴρὑμῶν [ἡμῶν , σου , αὐτῶν ] (e. g. twenty times in St. Matt.), and ὁπατήρμου [ὁπατήρ ] (e. g. twenty-three times in St. Matt.). In particular this second phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father; so that when the two are placed in juxtaposition, as in the greeting of this and other Epistles, ὁΠατήρ is the natural term to use. The mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the πατὴρτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ (which is expressed in full in 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; cf. Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 11:31, but not Ephesians 3:14; Colossians 2:2); so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in ἡμῶν , to bring out the connexion between the source of ‘ grace and peace’ and its recipients. It is no doubt true that πατήρ is occasionally used in N. T. in the more general sense of ‘ Creator’ (James 1:17 ‘ Father of lights,’ i. e. in the first instance, Creator of the heavenly bodies; Hebrews 12:9 ‘ Father of spirits’ ; cf. Acts 17:28, but perhaps not Ephesians 4:6 πατὴρπάντων , where πάντων may be masc.). It is true also that ὁπατὴρτῶνὅλων in this sense is common in Philo, and that similar phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xix. 2; Justin, Apol. i. 36, 61; Tatian, Or. c. Graec. 4). But when Harnack prefers to give this interpretation to Pater in the earliest creeds (Das Apost. Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 20), the immense preponderance of N. T. usage, and the certainty that the Creed is based upon that usage (e. g. in 1 Corinthians 8:6) seem to be decisive against him. On the early history of the term see esp. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 20 ff. The Theological Terminology of Rom 1:1-7 In looking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to be struck by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teaching contained in them. It is remarkable enough, and characteristic of this primitive Christian literature, especially of the Epistles of St. Paul, that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty teaching of any kind; but it is still more remarkable when we think what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned. There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed with deliberate emphasis and precision: (1) A complete set of ideas as to the commission and authority of an Apostle; (2) A complete set of ideas as to the status in the sight of God of a Christian community; (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of the new order of things to the old; (4) A clear assertion of what we should call summarily the Divinity of Christ, which St. Paul regarded both in the light of its relation to the expectations of his countrymen, and also in its transcendental reality, as revealed by or inferred from the words and acts of Christ Himself; (5) A somewhat advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in the Godhead. We observe too how St. Paul connects together these groups of ideas, and sees in them so many parts of a vast Divine plan which covers the whole of human history, and indeed stretches back beyond its beginning. The Apostle has to the full that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he himself is only an instrument, the place and function of which are clearly foreseen, for the accomplishment of God’ s gracious purposes (compare e. g. Jeremiah 1:5 and Galatians 1:15). These purposes are working themselves out, and the Roman Christians come within their range. When we come to examine particular expressions we find that a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. T. In some cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated ; in other cases an old phrase has been adopted with comparatively little modification ; in others the transference involves a larger modification ; in others again we have a term which has acquired a significance since the close of the O. T. which Christianity appropriates ; in yet others we have a new coinage , which however in these instances is due, not to St. Paul or the other Apostles, but to Christ Himself. ST. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH 1:8-15. God knows how long I have desired to see you — a hope which I trust may at last be accomplished— and to deliver to you, as to the rest of the Gentile world, my message of salvation. 8 In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to God, through Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers and praises, for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you bear for your earnest Christianity. 9 If witness were needed to show how deep is my interest in you, I might appeal to God Himself Who hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses to Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. 10 He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips, and how every time I kneel in prayer it is my petition, that at some near day I may at last, in the course which God’ s Will marks out for me, really have my way made clear to visit you. 11 For I have a great desire to see you and to impart to you some of those many gifts (of instruction, comfort, edification and the like) which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me, and so to strengthen your Christian character. 12 I do not mean that I am above receiving or that you have nothing to bestow,— far from it,— but that I myself may be cheered by my intercourse with you , or that we may be mutually cheered by each other’ s faith, I by yours and you by mine. 13 I should be sorry for you to suppose that this is a new resolve on my part. The fact is that I often intended to visit you— an intention until now as often frustrated — in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my labours among you, as in the rest of the Gentile world. 14 There is no limit to this duty of mine to preach the Gospel. To all without distinction whether of language or of culture, I must discharge the debt which Christ has laid upon me. 15 Hence, so far as the decision rests with me, I am bent on delivering the message of salvation to you too at Rome. 8. διά . Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis offerre: et ideo addit per Jesum Christum; velut per Pontificen magnum Orig. ἡπίστιςὑμῶν . For a further discussion of this word see below on ver. 17. Here it is practically equivalent to ‘ your Christianity,’ the distinctive act which makes a man a Christian carrying with it the direct consequences of that act upon the character. Much confusion of thought would be saved if wherever ‘ faith’ was mentioned the question were always consciously asked, Who or what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be used in the N. T. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object. In this Epistle ‘ faith’ is nearly always ‘ faith in Christ.’ The object is expressed in 3:22, 26 but is left to be understood elsewhere. In the case of Abraham ‘ faith’ is not so much ‘ faith in God’ as ‘ faith in the promises of God,’ which promises are precisely those which are fulfilled in Christianity. Or it would perhaps be more strictly true to say that the immediate object of faith is in most cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. At the same time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of that whole ‘ economy’ of which the Incarnation of Christ formed a part. Thus it is God Who justifies though the moving cause of justification is usually defined as ‘ faith in Christ.’ And inasmuch as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise, even justifying faith may be described as ‘ faith in God.’ The most conspicuous example of this is ch. 4:5 τῷδὲμὴἐργαζομένῳ , πιστεύοντιδὲἐπὶτὸνδικαιοῦντατὸνἀσεβῆ , λογίζεταιἡπίστιςαὐτοῦεἰςδικαιοσύνην . 9. λατρεύω connected with λάτρις , ‘ hired servant,’ and λάτρον , ‘ hire’ : (i) already in classical Gk. applied to the service of a higher power (διὰτὴντοῦθεοῦλατρείαν Plato, Apol. 23 B); (ii) in LXX always of the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. Hence Augustine: Λατρεία … aut semper aut tam frequenter ut fere semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench, Syn. p. 120 f.). Λατρεύειν is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning than λειτουργεῖν : (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God where λειτουργεῖν is used also of the service of men (Joshua 1:1 v. l; 1 Kings 1:4, 1 Kings 1:19:21; 2 Kings 4:43, 2 Kings 4:6:15, &c.); (ii) but on the other hand it is used of the service both of priest and people, esp. of the service rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts 26:7 τὸδωδεκάφυλονἐνἐκτενείᾳλατρεῦον , cf. Romans 9:4); λειτουργεῖν is appropriated to the ministrations of priests and Levites (Hebrews 10:11, &c.). Where λειτουργεῖν is not strictly in this sense, there is yet more or less conscious reference to it (e. g. in Romans 13:6 and esp. 15:16). ἐντῷπνεύματίμου . The πνεῦμα is the organ of service; the εὐαγγέλιον the sphere in which the service is rendered. ἐπὶτῶνπροσευχῶνμου : ‘ at my prayers,’ at all my times of prayer (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:2; Ephesians 1:16; Philemon 1:4). 10. εἴπως . On the construction see Burton, Moods and Tenses, § 276. ἤδηποτέ : a difficult expression to render in English; ‘ now at length’ (AV. and RV.) omits ποτέ , just as ‘ in ony maner sumtyme’ (Wic.) omits ἤδη ; ‘ sometime at the length’ (Rhem.) is more accurate, ‘ some near day at last.’ In contrast with νῦν (which denotes present time simply) ἤδη denotes the present or near future in relation to the process by which it has been reached, and with a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that it has been reached so soon as it has. So here ἤδη = ‘ now, after all this waiting’ : ποτέ makes the moment more indefinite. On ἤδη see Bä umlein, Griech. Partikeln, p. 138 ff. εὐοδωθήσομαι . The word has usually dropped the idea of ὁδός and means ‘ to be prospered’ in any way (e. g. 1 Corinthians 16:2 ὅτιἂνεὐοδῶται , where it is used of profits gained in trade; similarly in LXX and Test. XII. Patr. Jude 1:1, Gad 7); and so here Mey. Gif. RV., &c. It does not, however, follow that because a metaphor is often dropped, it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested by the context. We are thus tempted to render with the earlier English Versions and Vulg. prosperum iter habeam (‘ I have a spedi wey’ Wic.). ἐντῷθελήματιτοῦΘεοῦ . St. Paul has a special reason for laying stress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands of God. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs in going up to Jerusalem (Romans 15:30 f.), and he is very doubtful whether anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 42 ff.). ἐλθεῖν : probably for ὥστεἐλθεῖν (Burton, § 371 c). 11. ἐπιποθῶ : ἐπι - marks the direction of the desire, ‘ to you-ward’ ; thus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it rather strengthens its emotional character. χάρισμαπνευματικόν . St. Paul has in his mind the kind of gifts — partly what we should call natural and partly transcending the ordinary workings of nature— described in 1 Cor. 12-14; Romans 12:6 ff. Some, probably most, of these gifts he possessed in an eminent degree himself (1 Corinthians 14:18), and he was assured that when he came to Rome he would be able to give the Christians there the fullest benefit of them . His was conspicuously a case which came under the description of Joh 7:38 ‘ He that believeth on Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,’ i. e. the believer in Christ should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual influence and blessing to others. εἰςτὸστηριχθῆναι : εἰςτό with Infin. expressing purpose ‘ is employed with special frequency by Paul, but occurs also in Heb_1 Pet. and Jas.’ (Burton, § 409). 12. συμπαρακληθῆναι : the subject is ἐμέ , which, from the συν - in συμπαρακλ . and ἐνὑμῖν , is treated in the latter part of the sentence as equivalent to ἡμεῖς . We note of course the delicacy with which the Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians: he will not assume any airs of superiority, but meets them frankly upon their own level: if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn will confer an equivalent upon him. 13. οὐθέλω : οὐκοἴομαι (D*) G, non arbitror d e g Ambrstr.; an instance of Western paraphrase. σχῶ , ‘ I may get.’ This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ FROM GENTILE TO JEW. BOTH ALIKE GUILTY 2:1-16. This state of things puts out of court the [Jewish] critic who is himself no better than the Gentile. He can claim no exemption, but only aggravates his sin by impenitence (vv. 1-5). Strict justice will be meted out to all — the Jew coming first then the Gentile (vv. 6-11). The Jew, will be judged by the Law of Moses, the Gentile by the Law of Conscience, at the Great Assize which Christ will hold (vv. 12-16). 1The Gentile sinner is without excuse; and his critic— who ever he may be— is equally without excuse, even though [like the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of lofty superiority. No such platform really exists. In fact the critic only passes sentence upon himself, for by the fact of his criticism he shows that he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong, and his own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. 2And we are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. The standard of His judgement is reality, and not a man’ s birth or status as either Jew or Gentile. 3Do you suppose— you Jewish critic, who are so ready to sit in judgement on those who copy your own example— do you suppose that a special exemption will be made in your favour, and that you personally (σύ emphatic) will escape? 4Or are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness, forbearance, and patience with which God delays His punishment of sin? If so, you make a great mistake. The object of that long-suffering is not that you may evade punishment but only to induce you to repent. 5While you with that callous impenitent heart of yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath, which will burst upon you in the Day of Wrath, when God will stand revealed in His character as the Righteous Judge. 6The principle of His judgement is clear and simple. He will render to every man his due, by no fictitious standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what he has done. 7To those who by steady persistence in a life-work of good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom, He will give that for which they strive, viz. eternal life. 8But to those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right and loyal only to unrighteousness, for such there is in store anger and fury, 9galling, nay crushing, pain: for every human being they are in store, who carries out to the end his course of evil, whether he be Jew or whether he be Gentile— the Jew again having precedence. 10On the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine Presence, the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with Him await the man who labours on at that which is good— be he Jew or Gentile; here too the Jew having precedence, but only precedence: 11for God regards no distinctions of race. 12Do not object that the Jew has a position of privilege which will exempt him from this judgement, while the Gentile has no law by which he can be judged. The Gentiles, it is true, have no law; but as they have sinned, so also will they be punished without one [see vv. 14, 15]. The Jews live under a law, and by that law they will be judged. 13For it is not enough to hear it read in the synagogues. That does not make a man righteous before God. His verdict will pronounce righteous only those who have done what the Law commands. 14I say that Gentiles too, although they have no written law, will be judged. For whenever any of them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, their own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. 15Because their actions give visible proof of commandments written not on stone but on the tables of the heart. These actions themselves bear witness to them; and an approving conscience also bears them witness; while in their dealings with one another their inward thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and sometimes (but more rarely) of the defence. 16These hidden workings of the conscience God can see; and therefore He will judge Gentile as well as Jew, at that Great Assize which I teach that He will hold through His Deputy, Jesus Messiah. 1. The transition from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much rhetorical skill, somewhat after the manner of Nathan’ s parable to David. Under cover of a general statement St. Paul sets before himself a typical Jew. Such an one would assent cordially to all that had been said hitherto (p. 49, sup.). It is now turned against himself, though for the moment the Apostle holds in suspense the direct affirmation, ‘ Thou art the man.’ There is evidence that Marcion kept vv. 2, 12-14, 16, 20 — 29; for the rest evidence fails. We might suppose that Marcion would omit vv. 17-20, which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew; but the retention of the last clause of ver. 20 is against this. διό links this section closely to the last; it is well led up to by 1:32, but ἀναπολ . pointing back to 1:20 shows that the Apostle had more than this in his mind. 2. οἴδαμενδέ A B D &c., Harcl., Orig.-lat. Tert. Ambrstr. Theodrt. al. WH. text RV. text: οἴδαμενγάρ א C 17 al. pauc. Latt. (exc. g) Boh. Arm., Chrys., Tisch. WH. marg. RV. marg. An even balance of authorities, both sides drawing their evidence from varied quarters. A more positive decision than that of WH. RV. would hardly be justified. οἴδαμεν : οἶδα = to know for a fact, by external testimony; γιγνώσκω = to know by inner personal experience and appropriation: see Sp. Comm. iii. 299; Additional note on 1 Corinthians 8:1. 3. σύ emphatic; ‘ thou, of all men.’ There is abundant illustration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and of his possession of the Law: cf. Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9 ‘ Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father’ ; John 8:33; Galatians 2:15; the passages quoted by Gif.; Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 69 f. There may be an element of popular misunderstanding, there is certainly an element of inconsistency, in some of these passages. The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis, for we know that they insisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law, moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them. 4. χρηστότητος : bonitatis Vulg., in Titus 3:4 benignitas: see Lft. on Galatians 5:22. χρηστότης = ‘ kindly disposition’ ; μακροθυμία = ‘ patience,’ opp. to ὀξυθυμία a ‘ short’ or ‘ quick temper,’ ‘ irascibility’ (cf. βραδὺςεἰςὀργήν James 1:19); ἀνοχή = ‘ forbearance,’ ‘ delay of punishment,’ cf. ἀνέχομαι to hold one’ s hand. Comp. Philo, Leg. Allegor. 1:13 (Mang. i. 50) Ὅτανγὰρὓῃμὲνκατὰθαλάττης , πηγὰςδὲἐντοῖςἐρημοτάτοιςἐπομβρῇ … τίἕτερονπαρίστησινἢτὴνὑπερβολὴντοῦτεπλούτουκαὶτῆςἀγαθότητοςαὑτοῦ ; With μακροθυμίας comp. a graphic image in Apoc. Baruch. xii. 4 Evigilabit contra te furor qui nunc in longanimitate tanquam in frenis retinetur. The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine attributes: 4 Ezr. 7:62-68 (132-138) Scio, Domine, quoniam nunc vocatus est Altissimus misericors, in eo quod misereatur his qui nondum in saeculo advenerunt; et miserator in eo quod miseretur illis qui conversionem faciunt in lege eius; et longanimis, quoniam longanimitatem praestat his qui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus; et munificus, quoniam quidem donari vult pro exigere; et multae misericordiae, quoniam multiplicat magis misericordias his qui praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et qui futuri sunt: si enim non multiplicaverit, non vivificabitur saeculum cum his qui inhabitant in eo; et donator, quoniam si non donaverit de bonitate sua ut alleventur hi qui iniquitatem fecerunt de suis iniquitatibus, non poterit decies millesima pars vivificari hominum. καταφρονεῖς : cf. Apoc. Baruch. 21:20 Innotescat potentia tua illis qui putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem. εἰςμετάνοιάνσεἄγει : its purpose or tendency is to induce you to repent. ‘ The Conative Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. A verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action in progress, and hence incomplete, naturally suggests the idea of attempt’ (Burton, § 11). ‘ According to R. Levi the words [Joe 2:13] mean: God removes to a distance His Wrath. Like a king who had two fierce legions. If these, thought he, encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects when they provoke me to anger. Therefore I will send them far away. Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. So also said God: Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. I will send them far away to a distance, so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger, they may come, before I send for them, and repent, and I may accept their repentance (cf. Isaiah 13:5). And not only that, said R. Jizchak, but he locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way; see Jeremiah 50:25, which means: Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again, man returns to God and He accepts him’ (Tract. Thaanitk ii. 1 ap. Winter u. Wü nsche,Jü d. Litt. i.207). 5. κατά : ‘ in accordance with,’ secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. ὀργήν : see on 1:18 above. ὀργὴνἐνἡμέρᾳὀργῆ : to be taken closely together, ‘ wrath (to be inflicted) in a day of wrath.’ The doctrine of a ‘ day of the Lord’ as a day of judgement is taught by the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos 5:18; Isaiah 2:12 ff.; Isaiah 13:6 ff.; Isaiah 24:21; Jeremiah 46:10; Joe 2:1 ff.; Zephaniah 1:7 ff.; Ezekiel 7:7 ff.; Ezekiel 30:3 ff.; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:1. It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic literature: Enoch xlv. 2 ff. (and the passages collected in Charles’ Note); Ps. Sol. 15:13 ff.; 4 Ezra 6:18 ff., 77 ff. [7:102ff. ed. Bensly]; 12:34; Apoc. Baruch. Lev_1; Lev_6, &c. δικαιοκρισίας : not quite the same as δικαίαςκρίσεως 2 Thessalonians 1:5 (cf. justi judicii Vulg.), denoting not so much the character of the judgement as the character of the Judge (δικαιοκριτής 2 Macc. 12:41; cf. ὁδίκαιοςκριτής 2 Timothy 4:8). The word occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen’ s Hexapla) of Hosea 6:5; it is also found twice in Test. XII Patriarch. Lev_3 ὁδεύτεροςἔχειπῦρ , χιόνα , κρύσταλλονἕτοιμαεἰςἡμέρανπροστάγματοςΚυρίουἐντῇδικαιοκρισίᾳτοῦΘεοῦ . Ibid. 15 λήψεσθεὀνειδισμὸνκαὶαἰσχύνηναἰώνιονπαρὰτῆςδικαιοκρισίαςτοῦΘεοῦ . 6. ὃςἀποδώσει : Proverbs 24:12 (LXX). The principle here laid down, though in full accord with the teaching of the N. T. generally (Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:24, Colossians 3:25; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12), may seem at first sight to conflict with St. Paul’ s doctrine of Justification by Faith. But Justification is a past act, resulting in a present state: it belongs properly to the beginning, not to the end, of the Christian’ s career (see on δικαιωθήσονται in ver. 13). Observe too that there is no real antithesis between Faith and Works in themselves. Works are the evidence of Faith, and Faith has its necessary outcome in Works. The true antithesis is between earning salvation and receiving it as a gift of God’ s bounty. St. Paul himself would have allowed that there might have been a question of earning salvation if the Law were really kept (Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept, the works were not done. 7. καθ ʼ ὑπομονὴνἔργουἀγαθοῦ : collective use of ἔργον , as in ver. 15, ‘ a lifework,’ the sum of a man’ s actions. 8. τοῖςδὲἐξἐριθείας : ‘ those whose motive is factiousness,’ opp. to the spirit of single-minded unquestioning obedience, those who use all the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade commands which they ought to obey. From ἔριθος ‘ a hired labourer’ we get ἐριθεύω ‘ to act as a hireling,’ ἐριθεύομαι a political term for ‘ hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:’ hence ἐριθεία = the spirit of faction, the spirit which substitutes factious opposition for the willing obedience of loyal subjects of the kingdom of heaven. See Lft. and Ell. on Galatians 5:20, but esp. Fri. ad loc. The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. Hesychius (cent. 5) derived ἔριθος from ἔρα ‘ earth’ ; the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further, and derives it from ἔραθής agricola mercede conductus; Greg. Nyssen. connects it with ἔριον ‘ wool’ (ἔριθος was used specially of woolworkers); but most common of all is the connexion with ἔρις (so Theodrt; on Philippians 2:3; cf. Vulg. his qui ex contentione [per contentionem Philippians 2:3; rixae Galatians 5:20]). There can be little doubt that the use of ἐριθεία was affected by association with ἔρις , though there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on ἐπωρώθησαν 11:7, κατανύξεως 11:8). ὀργὴ … θυμός : see Lft. and Ell. on Galatians 5:20; Trench, Syn. p. 125: ὀργή is the settled feeling, θυμός the outward manifestation, ‘ outbursts’ or ‘ ebullitions of wrath.’ ὀργὴδέἐστινὁἑπόμενοςτοῖςἁμαρτάνουσινἐπὶτιμωρίᾳπόνος . θυμὸνδὲὁρίζονταιὀργὴνἀναθυμιωμένηνκαὶδιοιδαίνουσαν Orig. (in Cramer’ s Catena). 9. θλῖψιςκαὶστενοχωρία : tribulatio (pressura in the African form of the Old Latin) et angustia Vulg., whence our word ‘ anguish’ : στενοχωρία is the stronger word = ‘ torturing confinement’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:8). But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: calamitas et angustiae h. e. summa calamitas Fri. p. 106. For similar combinations (‘ day of tribulation and pain,’ ‘ of tribulation and great shame,’ ‘ of suffering and tribulation,’ ‘ of anguish and affliction,’ &c.) see Charles’ note on Enoch xlv. 2. κατεργαζομένου = ‘ carry to the end’ ; κατά either strengthening the force of the simple vb., as per in perficere, or giving it a bad sense, as in perpetrare Fri. p. 107. 11. προσωποληψία : peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1; cf. προσωπολήπτης Acts 10:34; προσωποληπτεῖν James 2:9; ἀπροσωπολήπτως 1 Peter 1:17): πρόσωπονλαμβάνειν = (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor (Leviticus 19:15); and hence (ii) to show partiality, give corrupt judgement. In N. T. always with a bad sense. The idea goes back to Deuteronomy 10:17 ὁΘεὸς … οὐθαυμάζειπρόσωπονοὐδ ʼ οὐμὴλάβῃδῶρον , which is adopted in Ps. Sol. 2:19 ὁΘεὸςκριτὴςδίκαιοςκαὶοὐθαυμάσειπρόσωπον , and explained in Jubilees 5:15 ‘ And He is not one who will regard the person (of any) nor receive gifts; when He says that He will execute judgement on each: if one gave him everything that is on the earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any), nor accept anything at his hands, for he is a Righteous Judge’ ; cf. Apoc. Baruch. xiii. 7, Pirqê Aboth iv. 31 ‘ He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons, nor taking of a bribe.’ 12., 13. νόμος and ὁνόμος . The distinction between these two forms did not escape the scholarship of Origen, whose comment on Romans 3:21 reads thus in Rufinus’ translation (ed. Lommatzsch, vi. 201): Moris est apud Graecos nominibus ἄρθρα praeponi, quae apud nos possunt articuli nominari. Si quando igitur Mosis legem nominat, solitum nomini praemittit articulum: si quando vero naturalem vult intelligi, sine articulo nominat legem. This distinction however, though it holds good generally, does not cover all the cases. There are really three main uses: (1) ὁνόμος = the Law of Moses; the art. denotes something with which the readers are familiar, ‘ their own law,’ which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. T. (2) νόμος = law in general (e.g. 2:12, 14; 3:20 f.; 4:15; 5:13, &c.). (3) But there is yet a third usage where νόμος without art. really means the Law of Moses, but the absence of the art. calls attention to it not as proceeding from Moses, but in its quality as law; non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. expresses it in his comment on Galatians 2:19 (p. 46). St. Paul regards the Pre-Messianic period as essentially a period of Law, both for Jew and for Gentile. Hence when he wishes to bring out this he uses νόμος without art, even where he is referring to the Jews; because his main point is that they were under ‘ a legal system’ — who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary consideration. The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of things that was universal. This will explain passages like Romans 5:20, Romans 10:4. There will remain a few places, which do not come under any of these heads, where the absence of the art. is accounted for by the influence of the context, usually acting through the law of grammatical sympathy by which when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it; some of these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on 2:25; 3:31; 13:8). On the whole subject compare esp. Gif. p. 47 ff.; also a monograph by Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz, Freiburg i. B. 1884, ed. 2, 1893. Dr. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the distinction between νόμος and ὁνόμος , but his paper contains many just remarks and criticisms. 12. ἀνόμως . The heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances, Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed to destruction (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 65). ἥμαρτον . Burton (§ 54) calls this a ‘ collective Aorist,’ represented in English by the Perfect. ‘ From the point of view from which the Apostle is speaking, the sin of each offender is simply a past fact, and the sin of all a series or aggregate of facts together, constituting a past fact. But inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must as in 3:23 employ an English Perfect in translation.’ Prof. Burton suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. may be proleptic, as if it were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which will then be past; but the parallels of 3:23, 5:12 are against this. 13. οἱἀκροαταὶνόμου : cf. κατηχούμενοςἐκτοῦνόμου ver. 18; also Pereq R. Meir 6 (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 115) ‘ Thorah is acquired … by learning, by a listening ear,’ &c. It is interesting to note that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon, very possibly St. Paul’ s own class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher, is this: ‘ not learning but doing is the groundwork; and whoso multiplies words occasions sin’ (Pirqê Aboth. i. 18, ed. Taylor; reff. from Delitzsch). νόμου sine artic. bis א A B D G. The absence of the art. again (as in the last verse) generalizes the form of statement, ‘ the hearers and the doers of law’ (whatever that law may be); cf. 7:1. δικαιωθήσονται . The word is used here in its universal sense of ‘ a judicial verdict,’ but the fut. tense throws forward that verdict to the Final Judgement. This use must be distinguished from that which has been explained above (p. 30 f.), the special or, so to speak, technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic of St. Paul. It is not that the word has any different sense but that it is referred to the past rather than to the future (δικαιωθέντες aor. cf. 5:1, 9); the acquittal there dates from the moment at which the man becomes a Christian; it marks the initial step in his career, his right to approach the presence of God as if he were righteous. See on ver. 6 above. 14. ἔθνη : τὰἔθνη would mean all or most Gentiles, ἔθνη means only some Gentiles; the number is quite indefinite, the prominent point being their character as Gentiles. Cf. 4 Ezr. 3:36 homines quidem per nomina invenies servasse mandata tua, gentes autem non invenies. τὰμὴνόμονἔχοντα , the force of μή is ‘ who ex hypothesi have not a law,’ whom we conceive of as not having a law; cf. τὰμὴὄντα 1 Corinthians 1:28 (quae pro nihilo habentur (Grimm). ἑαυτοῖςεἰσινόμος : ubi legis impletio, ibi lex P. Ewald. The doctrine of this verse was liberal doctrine for a Jew. The Talmud recognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied by a definite wish for admission to the privileges of Judaism. Even if a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without circumcision (Debarim Rabba 1). If he prays to Jehovah his prayer is not heard (ibid.). If he commits sin and repents, that too does not help him (Pesikta 156a). Even for his alms he gets no credit (Pesikta 12b). ‘ In their books’ (i.e. in those in which God sets down the actions of the heathen) ‘ there is no desert’ (Shir Rabba 86c). See Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 66 f. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same effect. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison, Essays, ii. 61. ‘ In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in St. Paul which speak of the religion of the heathen; e.g. Romans 2:14. Since the time of Augustine (De Spir. et Lit. § 27) the orthodox interpretation had applied this verse, either to the Gentile converts, or to the favoured few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. The Protestant expositors, to whom the words “ do by nature the things contained in the law” could never bear their literal force, sedulously preserved the Augustinian explanation. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to gloss the phrase “ by nature,” thus: “ By fears and secret opinions which the Spirit of God, who is never wanting to men in things necessary, was pleased to put into the hearts of men” (Duct. Dubit. Book II. ch. i., § 3). The rationalists, however, find the expression “ by nature,” in its literal sense, exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1672], Of Nat. Rel. II. c. 9), and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness of those works, and the salvation of those who do them. Burnet, on Art. XVIII., in his usual confused style of eclecticism, suggests both opinions without seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of doctrine.’ 15., οἵτινες : see on 1:25. ἐνδείκνυνται : ἕνδειξις implies an appeal to facts; demonstratio rebus gestis facta (P. Ewald, De Vocis Συνειδήσεως , &c., p. 16 n.). τὸἔργοντοῦνόμου : ‘ the work, course of conduct belonging to’ ‘ the Law’ : collective use of ἔργον as in ver. 7 above. [Probably not as Ewald op. cit. p. 17 after Grotius, opus legis est id, quod lex in Judaeis efficit, nempe cognitio liciti et illiciti.] συμμαρτυρούσηςαὐτῶντῆςσυνειδήσεως . This phrase is almost exactly repeated in ch. 9:1 συμμαρτ . μοιτῆςσυνειδ . μου . In both cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as a further witness standing over against it. Here the quality of the acts themselves is one witness, and the approving judgement passed upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness. συνειδήσεως . Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original meaning and use of the word συνείδησις , which = ‘ co-knowledge,’ the knowledge or reflective judgement which a man has by the side of or in conjunction with the original consciousness of the act. This second consciousness is easily projected and personified as confronting the first. The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 b.c.), Monost. 597 (cf. 654) ἁπᾶσινἡμῖνἡσυνείδησιςθεός (ed. Didot, pp. 101, 103). It is significant that both the word and the idea are completely absent from Aristotle. They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral teaching of the Stoics. The two forms, τὸσυνειδός and ἡσυνείδησις appear to be practically convertible. Epictetus (Fragm. 97) compares the conscience to a παιδαγωγός in a passage which is closely parallel to the comment of Origen on this verse of Ep. Rom. (ed. Lommatzsch, 6:107) spiritus … velut paedagogus ei [sc. animae] quidam sociatus et rector ut eam de melioribus moneat vel de culpis castiget et arguat. In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. 17:10 [11] ἀεὶδὲπροσείληφετὰχαλεπὰ [πονηρία ] συνεχομένητῇσυνειδήσει . In Philo τὸσυνειδός is the form used. In N. T. the word is mainly Pauline (occurring in the speeches of Act 23:1, Acts 23:24:16; Rom_1 and 2 Cor., Past. Epp., also in Heb.); elsewhere only in 1 Pet. and the peric. adult. John 8:9. It is one of the few technical terms in St. Paul which seem to have Greek rather than Jewish affinities. The ‘ Conscience’ of St. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all men alike (Romans 2:15), and pronounces upon the character of actions, both their own (2 Corinthians 1:12) and those of others (2 Corinthians 4:2, 2 Corinthians 5:11). It can be over-scrupulous (1 Corinthians 10:25), but is blunted or ‘ seared’ by neglect of its warnings (1 Timothy 4:2). The usage of St. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic contemporaries, but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in modern times. Conscience, with the ancients, was the faculty which passed judgment upon actions after they were done (in technical language the conscientia consequens moralis), not so much the general source of moral obligation. In the passage before us St. Paul speaks of such a source ; but the law in question is rather generalized from the dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. See on the whole subject a treatise by Dr. P. Ewald, De Vocis Συνειδήσεως apud script. N. T. vi ac potestate (Lipsiae, 1883). μεταξὺἀλλήλων . This clause is taken in two ways: (i) of the ‘ thoughts,’ as it were, personified, Conscience being in debate with itself, and arguments arising now on the one side, and now on the other (cf. Shakspeare’ s ‘ When to the sessions of sweet silent thought, I summon up remembrance of things past’ ); in this case μεταξὺἀλλήλων almost = ‘ alternately,’ ‘ in mutual debate’ ; (ii) taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man’ s own acts, and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on the acts of the others; then μεταξὺἀλλήλων will = ‘ between one another,’ ‘ between man and man,’ ‘ in the intercourse of man with man’ ; and λογισμῶν will be the ‘ arguments’ which now take one side and now the other. The principal argument in favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Gif. Lips.) is the emphatic position of μεταξὺἀλλήλων , which suggests a contrast between the two clauses, as if they described two different processes and not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. There is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. Moys. i. 13 Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam, et non coepit eam inceptionem creaturae … palam facere, ut in ea gentes arguantur et humiliter inter se disputationibus arguant se. τῶνλογισμῶν : the λογισμοί are properly ‘ thoughts’ conceived in the mind, not ‘ arguments’ used in external debate. This appears from the usage of the word, which is frequently combined with καρδίᾳ (πολλοὶλογισμοὶἐνκαρδίᾳἀνδρός Proverbs 19:21; cf. Psalms 32:11; Proverbs 6:18): it is used of secret ‘ plots’ , and of the Divine intentions . In the present passage St. Paul is describing an internal process, though one which is destined to find external expression; it is the process by which are formed the moral judgements of men upon their fellows. ‘ The conscience’ and ‘ the thoughts’ both belong to the same persons. This is rightly seen by Klö pper, who has written at length on the passage before us (Paulinische Studien, Kö nigsberg, 1887, p. 10); but it does not follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are exercised upon the same objects, or that μεταξὺἀλλήλων must be referred to the thoughts in the sense that influences from without are excluded. The parallel quoted in support of this derives that part of its meaning from μόνου , not from μεταξύ . ἢκαί : ‘ or even,’ ‘ or it may be,’ implying that ἀπολ . is the exception, κατηγ . the rule. 16. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English) a colon after ver. 13, and a semi-colon at the end of ver. 15: ver. 16 goes back to δικαιωθήσονται in ver. 13, or rather forms a conclusion to the whole paragraph, taking up again the ἐνἡμέρᾳ of ver. 5. The object of vv. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one: they have a second inferior kind of law, if not any written precepts yet the law of conscience; by this law they will be judged when quick and dead are put upon their trial. Orig., with his usual acuteness, sees the difficulty of connecting ver. 16 with ver. 15, and gives an answer which is substantially right. The ‘ thoughts accusing and condemning’ are not conceived as rising up at the last day but now. They leave however marks behind, velut in ceris, ita in corde nostro. These marks God can see (ed. Lomm. p. 109). ἐνἡμέρᾳὅτε (et WH. marg.): ἐνᾗἡμέρᾳ B, WH. text: ἐνἡμέρᾳᾗ A, Pesh. Boh. al., WH. marg. διὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦ (et WH. marg.): διὰΧριστοῦἸησοῦ א B, Orig., Tisch. WH. text. κρινεῖ : might be κρίνει , as RV. marg., fut. regarded as certain. κατὰτὸεὐαγγέλιόνμου . The point to which St. Paul’ s Gospel, or habitual teaching, bears witness is, not that God will judge the world (which was an old doctrine), but that He will judge it through Jesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its application, though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge, Enoch xlv, xlvi, with Charles’ notes). The phrase κατὰτὸεὐαγγ . μου occurs Romans 16:25, of the specially Pauline doctrine of ‘ free grace’ ; 2 Timothy 2:8, (i) of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. We note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced by φασὶδέ , Eus. H. E. III. 4:8), that wherever St. Paul spoke of ‘ his Gospel’ he meant the Gospel of St. Luke. FAILURE OF THE JEWS 2:17-29. The Jew may boast of his possession of a special Revelation and a written Law, but all the time his practice shows that he is really no better than the Gentile (vv. 17-24). And if he takes his stand on Circumcision, that too is of value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. In this moral and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (vv. 25-29). 17Do you tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew, that you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation? Do you boast that Jehovah is your God, 18that you are fully acquainted with His revealed Will, that you adopt for yourself a high standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day? 19Do you give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to the poor blind Gentile, a luminary to enlighten his darkness? 20Do you call your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster? Are they mere infants and you their teacher? You, who have all knowledge and all truth visibly embodied for you in the Law? 21Boastful Jew! How does your practice comport with your theory? So ready to teach others, do you need no teaching yourself? The eighth 22and seventh commandments which you hold up to others— do you yourself keep them? You profess to loathe and abhor idols; but do you keep your hands from robbing their temples? 23You vaunt the possession of a law; and by the violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. 24As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in contempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved, so do they now for a different reason— because of the gross inconsistency in practice of those who claim to be His people. 25True it is that behind the Law you have also the privilege of Circumcision, which marks the people of Promise. And Circumcision has its value if you are a law-performer. But if you are a law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. 26Does it not follow that if the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weightier statutes of the Moral Law, he will be treated as if he were circumcised? 27And uncircumcised as he is, owing to his Gentile birth, yet if he fulfils the Law, his example will (by contrast) condemn you who with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision, only break the law of which you boast. 28For it is not he who has the outward and visible marks of a Jew who is the true Jew; neither is an outward and bodily circumcision the true circumcision. 29But he who is inwardly and secretly a Jew is the true Jew; and the moral and spiritual circumcision is that which really deserves the name. The very word ‘ Jew’ — descendant of Judah— means ‘ praise’ (Genesis 29:35). And such a Jew has his ‘ praise,’ not from man but from God. 17. Εἰδέ א A B D* al., Latt. Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth., &c.: Ἴδε Dc L al., Harcl., Chrys. al. The authorities for εἰδέ include all the oldest MSS., all the leading versions, and the oldest Fathers: ἴδε is an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction slightly easier. Reading εἰδέ the apodosis of the sentence begins at ver. 21. Ἰουδαῖος : here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew it would have a tendency to do) to Ἰσραηλίτης , a member of the Chosen People, opposed to the heathen. Strictly speaking, Ἑβραῖος , opp. Ἕλληνιστής , calls attention to language; Ἰουδαῖος , opp. Ἑλλην , calls attention to nationality; Ἰσραηλίτης = a member of the theocracy, in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench, Syn. § xxxix, p. 132 ff.). The word Ἰουδαῖος does not occur in LXX (though Ἰουδαϊσμός is found four times in 2 Macc.), but at this date it is the common word; Ἑβραῖος and Ἰσραηλίτης are terms reserved by the Jews themselves, the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the Palestinian and Greek-speaking), the other to describe their esoteric status. For the Jew’ s pride in his privileges comp. 4 Ezra 6:55 f. haec autem omnia dixi coram te, Domine, quoniam dixisti eas (sc. gentes) nil esse, et quoniam salivae assimilatae sunt, et quasi stillicidium de vase similasti habundantiam corum. ἐπονομάζῃ : ‘ bearest the name’ : ἐπονομάζειν = ‘ to impose a name,’ pass. ‘ to have a name imposed.’ ἐπαναπαύῃνόμῳ : ‘ have a law to lean upon’ : so (without art.) א A B D*; =; but it is not surprising that the later MSS. should make the statement more definite, ‘ lean upon the Law.’ For ἐπαν . (requiescis Vulg.) cf. Micah 3:11; Ezekiel 29:7: the word implies at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour which resulted to the Jew from the possession of a law. καυχᾶσαιἐνΘεῷ : suggested by Jeremiah 9:24 ‘ let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord.’ καυχᾶσαι : for καυχᾷ , stopping at the first step in the process of contraction . This is one of the forms which used to be called ‘ Alexandrine,’ but which simply belong to the popular Greek current at the time (Hort, Introd. p. 304). καυχᾶσαι occurs also in 1 Corinthians 4:7, κατακαυχᾶσαι Romans 11:18; comp. ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke 16:25, and from uncontracted verbs, φάγεσαι … πίεσαι Luke 17:8, δύνασαι Matthew 5:36 (but δύνῃ Mark 9:22); see Win. Gr. xiii. 2b (p. 90). 18. τὸθέλημα . Bp. Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was so constantly used for ‘ the Divine Will’ that even without the art. it might have that signification, as in 1 Corinthians 16:12 (On Revision, p. 106 Exo_1, p. 118 Exo_2). δοκιμάζειςτὰδιαφέροντα : probas utiliora Cod. Clarom. Rufin. Vulg.; non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. on Philippians 1:10, where the phrase recurs exactly. Both words are ambiguous: δοκιμάζειν = (i) ‘ to test, assay, discern’ ; (ii) ‘ to approve after testing’ (see on 1:28); and τὰδιαφέροντα may be either ‘ things which differ,’ or ‘ things which stand out, or excel.’ Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV. and RV. marg., with a like division of commentators. The rendering of RV. marg. (‘ provest the things that differ,’ ‘ hast experience of good and bad’ Tyn.) has the support of Euthym.-Zig. , Fri. De W. Oltr. Go. Lips. Mou. The rendering of RV. is adopted by Latt. Orig. (ita ut non solum quae sint bona scias, verum etiam quae sint meliora et utiliora discernas), most English Versions, Mey. Lft. Gif. Lid. (Chrys. does not distinguish; Va is undecided). The second rendering is the more pointed. κατηχούμενοςἐκτοῦνόμου : cf. Acts 15:21. 19. πέποιθαςκ .τ .λ . The common construction after πέποιθας is ὅτι : acc. and infin. is very rare. It seems better, with Vaughan, to take σεαυτόν closely with πέποιθας , ‘ and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art,’ &c. ὁδηγὸν … τυφλῶν . It is natural to compare Matthew 15:14 τυφλοίεἰσινὁδηγοὶτυφλῶνκ .τ .λ .; also 23:16, 24. Lips. thinks that the first saying was present to the mind of the Apostle. It would not of course follow that it was current in writing, though that too is possible. On the other hand the expression may have been more or less proverbial: comp. Wü nsche, Erlä ut. d. Evang. on Matthew 23:16. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean to R. Chasda, Baba Kama fol. 52 a. ‘ When the Shepherd is angry with the sheep he blinds their leader; i.e. when God determines to punish the Israelites, He gives them unworthy rulers.’ 20. παιδευτήν : ‘ a schoolmaster,’ with the idea of discipline, correction, as well as teaching; cf. Hebrews 12:9. νηπίων : ‘ infants,’ opp. to τέλειοι , ‘ adults,’ as in Hebrews 5:13, Hebrews 5:14. μόρφωσιν : ‘ outline,’ ‘ delineation,’ ‘ embodiment.’ As a rule σχῆμα = outward form as opp. to inward substance, while μορφή = outward form as determined by inward substance; so that σχῆμα is the variable, μορφή the permanent, element in things: see Lft. Phil. p. 125 ff.; Sp. Comm. on 1 Corinthians 7:31. Nor does the present passage conflict with this distinction. The Law was a real expression of Divine truth, so far as it went. It is more difficult to account for 2 Timothy 3:5 ἔχοντεςμόρφωσινεὐσεβείαςτὴνδὲδύναμιναὐτῆςἠρνημένοι . See however Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. (1857) iii. 115 ‘ They will observe that in two passages where St. Paul does speak of that which is unreal or at least external, and does not employ σχῆμα , he still avoids using μορφή as inappropriate, and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Romans 2:20; 2 Timothy 3:5), where the termination, ωσις denotes “ the aiming after or affecting the μορφή .” ’ Can this quite be made good? 21. οὖν : resumptive, introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. 17-20. After the string of points, suspended as it were in the air, by which the Apostle describes the Jew’ s complacency, he now at last comes down with his emphatic accusation. Here is the ‘ Thou art the man’ which we have been expecting since ver. 1. κλέπτειν : infin. because κηρύσσων contains the idea of command. 22. βδελυσσόμενος : used of the expression of physical disgust, esp. of the Jew’ s horror at idolatry. Note the piling up of phrases in Deuteronomy 7:26 καὶοὐκεἰσοίσειςβδέλυγμα [here of the gold and silver plates with which idols were overlaid] εἰςτὸνοἶκόνσου , καὶἔσῃἀνάθημαὥσπερτοῦτο , προσοχθίσματιπροσοχθιεῖςκαὶβδελύγματιβδελύξῃ , ὅτιἀνάθημάἐστιν . Comp. also Daniel 12:11; Matthew 24:15, &c. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry the idols of the heathen: Assump. Moys. viii. 4 cogentur palam baiulare idola corum inquinata. ἱεροσυλεῖς . The passage just quoted (Deuteronomy 7:26 with 25), Joseph. Ant. IV. viii. 10, and Acts 19:37 (where the town-clerk asserts that St. Paul and his companions were ‘ not ἱερόσυλοι ’ ) show that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship. There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly guarded against this: everything which had to do with an idol was a βδέλυγμα to him unless it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. But for this the Jew might have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good work. See the passages in Delitzsch ad loc.; also on ἱεροσυλία , which must not be interpreted too narrowly, Lft., Ess. on Supern. Rel. p. 299 f.; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 144 n., where it is noted that ἱεροσυλία was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could proceed against by his own imperium. The Eng. Versions of ἱεροσυλεῖς group themselves thus: ‘ robbest God of his honour’ Tyn. Cran. Genev.; ‘ doest sacrilege’ (or equivalent) Wic. Rhem. AV. RV. marg.; ‘ dost rob temples’ RV. 23. It is probably best not to treat this verse as a question. The questions which go before are collected by a summary accusation. Gif., with a delicate sense of Greek composition, sees a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and indic. . 24. A free adaptation of Isa 52:5 (LXX). Heb. ‘ And continually all the day long My Name is blasphemed’ : LXX adds to this δι ʼ ὑμᾶς and ἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν . St. Paul omits διαπαντός and changes μου to τοῦΘεοῦ . The original meant that the Name of God was reviled by the tyrants and oppressors of Israel: St. Paul, following up a suggestion in the LXX , traces this reviling to the scandal caused by Israel’ s inconsistency. The fact that the formula of quotation is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the passage freely: it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the language he has just used is a quotation at all. See the longer note on ch. 10, below. 25. νόμονπράσσῃς . On the absence of the art. see especially the scholarly note in Va.: ‘ It is almost as if νόμονπράσσειν and νόμουπαραβάτης were severally like νομοθετεῖν , νομοφυλακεῖν , &c., νομοθέτης , νομοδιδάσκαλος , &c., one compound word: if thou be a law-doer … if thou be a law-transgressor, &c., indicating the character of the person, rather than calling attention to the particular form or designation of the law, which claims obedience.’ γέγονεν : ‘ is by that very fact become.’ Del. quotes the realistic expression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked 26. εἰςπεριτομὴνλογισθήσεται : λογίζεσθαιεἴςτι = λογίζεσθαιεἰςτὸεἶναίτι , εἰς denoting result, ‘ so as to be in place of,’ ‘ reckoned as a substitute or equivalent for’ (Fri., Grm.-Thay. s. v. λογίζομαι 1 a). Of the synonyms τηρεῖν , φυλάσσειν , τελεῖν ; τηρεῖν = ‘ to keep an eye upon,’ ‘ to observe carefully’ (and then do); φυλάσσειν = ‘ to guard as a deposit,’ ‘ to preserve intact’ against violence from without or within; τελεῖν = ‘ to bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment’ in action; τηρεῖν and φυλάσσειν are both from the point of view of the agent, τελεῖν from that of the law which is obeyed. See Westcott on Job 17:12; 1 John 2:3. 27. κρινεῖ : most probably categorical and not a question as AV. and RV.; = ‘ condemn’ by comparison and contrast, as in Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42 ‘ the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement with this generation and shall condemn it,’ &c. Again we are pointed back to vv. 1-3; the judge of others shall be himself judged. ἡἐκφύσεωςἀκροβυστία : uncircumcision which physically remains as it was born. The order of the words seems opposed to Prof. Burton’ s rendering, ‘ the uncircumcision which by nature fulfils the law’ (ἐκφύς . = φύσει 5:14). διά of ‘ attendant circumstances’ as in 4:11, 8:25, 14:20; Anglicé ‘ with,’ with all your advantages of circumcision and the possession of a written law. The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. Paul and is worked out at length in 9:6 ff.; see also Philippians 2:14 sup. We may compare Philippians 3:3, where St. Paul claims that Christians represent the true circumcision. 28. ὁἐντῷφανερῷ . The Greek of this and the next verse is elliptical, and there is some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and how much to the predicate. Even accomplished scholars like Dr. Gifford and Dr. Vaughan differ. The latter has some advantage in symmetry, making the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (‘ Not he who is [a Jew] outwardly is a Jew … but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew’ ); but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates περιτομή and καρδίας : Gif., as it seems to us rightly, combines these (‘ he which is inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew], and circumcision of heart … [is true circumcision’ ]). Similarly Lips. Weiss (but not Mey.). 29. περιτομὴκαρδίας . The idea of a spiritual (heart-) circumcision goes back to the age of Deuteronomy; Deuteronomy 10:16 περιτεμεῖσθετὴνσκληροκαρδίανὑμῶν : Jeremiah 4:4 περιτμήθητετῷΘεῷὑμῶν , καὶπεριτέμεσθετὴνσκληροκαρδίανὑμῶν : cf. Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7; Acts 7:51. Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian circumcision, Dial. c. Tryph 114. ὁἔπαινος . We believe that Dr. Gifford was the first to point out that there is here an evident play on the name ‘ Jew’ : Judah = ‘ Praise’ (cf. Genesis 29:35; Genesis 49:8). A Cod. Alexandrinus B Cod. Vaticanus D Cod. Claromontanus &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Harcl. Harclean. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen Tert. Tertullian. Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster. Theodrt. Theodoret. al. alii, alibi. WH. Westcott and Hort. RV. Revised Version. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus Latt. Latin. g Latin version of G Boh. Bohairic. Arm. Armenian. Chrys. Chrysostom. Tisch. Tischendorf. Gif. Gifford. Vulg. Vulgate. Lft. Lightfoot. Ell. Ellicott. Fri. Fritzsche (C. F. A.). Orig. Origen. G Cod. Boernerianus Mey. Meyer. Lips. Lipsius. Pesh. Peshitto. Eus. Eusebius. Aeth. Ethiopic. L Cod. Angelicus Beng. Bengel. Tyn. Tyndale. Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. De W. De Wette. Oltr. Oltramare. Go. Godet. Lid. Liddon. Genev. Geneva. Wic. Wiclif. Rhem. Rheims (or Douay). AV. Authorized Version. Va. Vaughan. Del. Delitzsch. 3:1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: (i) If the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew, what becomes of the Jew’ s advantages?— Answer. He still has many. His (e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But has not the Jews’ unbelief cancelled those promises?— Answer. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithfulness (vv. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his action, why should man be judged?— Answer. He certainly will be judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8). 1 If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and spiritual, an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like? What does he gain by his circumcision? 2 He does gain much on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed the prophecies of the Messiah. [Here the subject breaks off; a fuller enumeration is given in ch. 9:4, 5. 3 You say, But the Jews by their unbelief have forfeited their share in those prophecies. And I admit that some Jews have rejected Christianity, in which they are fulfilled. What then? The promises of God do not depend on man. He will keep His word, whatever man may do. 4 To suggest otherwise were blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all mankind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Psa_51 the Psalmist confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in forensic metaphor) God will be ‘ declared righteous’ in His sayings [the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought to trial. 5 A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only a foil to set off the righteousness of God would not God be unjust who punishes men for sin? (Speaking of God as if He were man can hardly be avoided.) 6 That too were blasphemy to think! If any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must be fallacious. 7 If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like other offenders brought up for judgement as a sinner? 8 So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying ‘ Let us do evil that good may come’ is brought with slanderous exaggeration against me— as if the stress which I lay on faith compared with works meant, Never mind what your actions are, provided only that the end you have in view is right. All I will say is that the judgement which these sophistical reasoners will receive is richly deserved. 1 ff. It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring against him (so 3:1 ff., 4:1 ff., 6:1 ff., 15 ff., 7:7 ff.). No doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly that the charge of saying ‘ Let us do evil that good may come’ was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And 6:1, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down all the Jew’ s privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and disparaging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against St. Stephen (Acts 6:13 f.). It is probable however that St. Paul had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propounds it in the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reasoning, pro and con., which went to the shaping of his own system. The modified form in which the question comes up the second time (ver. 9) shows— if our interpretation is correct— that St. Paul is there rather following out his own thought than contending with an adversary. 1. τὸπερισσόν . That which encircles a thing necessarily lies outside it. Hence περί would seem to have a latent meaning ‘ beyond,’ which is appropriated rather by πέρα , πέραν , but comes out in περισσός , ‘ that which is in excess,’ ‘ over and above.’ 2. πρῶτονμέν : intended to be followed by ἔπειταδέ , but the line of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges such as might have followed here is given in ch. 9:4. πρῶτονμὲνγάρ : om. γάρ B D* E G minusc. pauc., verss. plur., Chrys. Orig.-lat. al., [γάρ ] WH. ἐπιστεύθησαν . πιστεύω , in the sense of ‘ entrust,’ ‘ confide,’ takes acc. of the thing entrusted, dat. of the person; e. g. John 2:24 ὁδὲἸησοῦςοὐκἐπίστευενἑαυτὸν [rather αὑτὸν or αὐτόν ] αὐτοῖς . In the passive the dat. becomes nom., and the acc. remains unchanged (Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190; Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287]; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:17; Galatians 2:7). τὰλόγια . St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine; the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the Messiah. The old account of λόγιον as a dimin. of λόγος is probably correct, though Mey.-W.. make it neut. of λόγιος on the ground that λογίδιον is the proper dimin. The form λογίδιον is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process common in language took the place of λόγιον when it acquired the special sense of ‘ oracle.’ From Herod. downwards λόγιον = ‘ oracle’ as a brief condensed saying; and so it came to = any ‘ inspired, divine utterance’ : e.g. in Philo of the ‘ prophecies’ and of the ‘ ten commandments’ (περὶτῶνδέκαλογίων is the title of Philo’ s treatise). So in LXX the expression is used of the ‘ word of the Lord’ five times in Isaiah and frequently in the Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Psa_119 [118]). From this usage it was natural that it should be transferred to the ‘ sayings’ of the Lord Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 ὃςἂνμεθοδεύῃτὰλόγιατοῦΚυρίον : cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. 1 praef.; also Weiss, Einl. § 5. 4). But from the time of Philo onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative; so that it is a disputed point whether the λόγιατοῦΚυρίου which Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own λογίωνκυριακῶνἐξηγήσεις (Eus. H. E. III. xxxix.16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see especially Lightfoot, Ess. on Supern. Rel. p. 172 ff.). 3. ἠπίστησαν̣̣̣ἀπιστία . Do these words refer to ‘ unbelief’ (Mey. Gif. Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to ‘ unfaithfulness’ (De W. Weiss Lips. Va.)? Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) the main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the O. T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ; (ii) chaps. 9-11 show that the problem of Israel’ s unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle’ s mind; (iii) ‘ unbelief’ is the constant sense of the word (ἀπιστέω occurs seven times, in which the only apparent exception to this sense 2 Timothy 2:13, and ἀπιστία eleven times, with no clear exception); (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. 11:20 τῇἀπιστίᾳἐξεκλάσθησαν , σὺδὲτῇπίστειἕστηκας . At the same time the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the ἀπιστία of man is naturally contrasted with the πίστις of God (cf. Va.). πίστιν : ‘ faithfulness’ to His promises; cf. Lamentations 3:23 πολλὴἡπίστιςσου : Ps. Sol. 8:35 ἡπίστιςσουμεθἡμῶν . καταργήσει . καταργεῖν = ‘ to render inert or inactive’ : a characteristic word with St. Paul, occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess. Eph_2 Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.); = (i) in a material sense, ‘ to make sterile or barren,’ of soil Luke 13:7, cf. Romans 6:6 ἳνακαταργηθῇτὸσῶματῆςἁμαρτίας , ‘ that the body as an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless’ ; (ii) in a figurative sense, ‘ to render invalid,’ ‘ abrogate,’ ‘ abolish’ (τὴνἐπαγγελίαν Galatians 3:17; νόμον Romans 3:31). 4. μὴγένοιτο : a formula of negation, repelling with horror something previously suggested. ‘ Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. instances are in Paul’ s writings, and in twelve of them it expresses the Apostle’ s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument’ (Burton, M. and T. § 177; cf. also Lft. on Galatians 2:17). It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 1 Cor., twice in Gal.). It occurs five times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Genesis 44:7, Genesis 44:17; Joshua 22:29, Joshua 22:24:16; 1 Kings 20:3, 1 Kings 21:3). γινέσθω : see on 1:3 above; the transition which the verb denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition, and so here, ‘ prove to be,’ ‘ be seen to be.’ ἀληθής : as keeping His plighted word. ψεύστης : in asserting that God’ s promises have not been fulfilled. καθὼςγέγραπται : ‘ Even as it stands written.’ The quotation is exact from LXX of Psa 51:6 [50:6]. Note the mistranslations in LXX (which St. Paul adopts), νικήσῃς for insons sis, ἐντῷκρίνεσθαι (pass.) for in iudicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God’ s judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment. ὅπωςἄν : ἄν points to an unexpressed condition, ‘ in case a decision is given.’ δικαιωθῇς : ‘ that thou mightest be pronounced righteous’ by the judgement of mankind; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Matthew 11:19 καὶἐδικαιώθηἡσοφίαἀπὸτῶνἔργων (v. l. τέκνων : cf. Luke 7:35) αὐτῆς . Test. XII Patr. Sym. 6 ὅπωςδικαιωθῶἀπὸτῆςἁμαρτίαςτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν . Ps. Son 2:16 ἐγὼδικαιώσωσεὁΘεός . The usage occurs repeatedly in this book; see Ryle and James ad loc. ἐντοῖςλόγοιςσου : not ‘ pleadings’ (Va.) but ‘ sayings,’ i. e. the λόγια just mentioned. ב probably = ‘ judicial sentence.’ νικήσῃς : like vincere, of ‘ gaining a suit,’ opp. to ἡττᾶσθαι : the full phrase is νικᾶντὴνδίκην (Eur. El. 955, &c.). νικήσῃς , B G K L &c.; νικἠσεις א A D E, minusc. aliq. Probably νικήσεις is right, because of the agreement of א A with the older types of Western Text, thus representing two great families. The reading νικήσῃς in B apparently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX: νικήσῃς is the reading of א B(def. A), νικήσεις of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs not seldom from that of the great uncials. κρίνεσθαι : probably not mid. as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass. as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c.; see the arguments from the usage of LXX and ב in Kautzsch, De Vet. Test. Locis a Paulo allegatis, p. 24 n). 5. ἡἀδικίαἡμῶν : a general statement, including ἀπιστία . In like manner Θεοῦδικαιοσύνην is general, though the particular instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God to His promises. συνίστησι : συνίστημι has in N. T. two conspicuous meanings: (i) ‘ to bring together’ as two persons, ‘ to introduce’ or ‘ commend’ to one another (e.g. Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 5:12, &c.; cf. συστατικαὶἐπιστολαί 2 Corinthians 3:1); (ii) ‘ to put together’ or ‘ make good’ by argument, ‘ to prove,’ ‘ establish’ (compositis collectisque quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo Fritzsche), as in Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18 (where see Lft. and Ell.). Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. ; but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the uses of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 ἀνέστησανἐπὶτοὺςδύοπρεσβύτας , ὅτισυνέστησεναὐτοὺςΔανιήλψευδομαρτυρήσαντας (Theod.). τίἐροῦμεν : another phrase, like μὴγένοιτο , which is characteristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times; not elsewhere in N. T. μὴἄδικος : the form of question shows that a negative answer is expected (μή originally meant ‘ Don’ t say that,’ &c.). ὁἐπιφέρωντὴνὀργήν : most exactly, ‘ the inflicter of the anger’ (Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on 1:18, 12:19. Burton however makes ὁἐπιφέρων strictly equivalent to a relative clause, and like a relative clause suggest a reason M. and T. § 428. κατὰἄνθρωπονλέγω : a form of phrase which is also characteristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact phrase recurs only in Galatians 3:15; but comp. also 1 Corinthians 9:8 μὴκατὰἄνθρωπονταῦταλαλῶ ; 2 Corinthians 11:17 ὅλαλῶ , οὐκατὰΚύριονλαλῶ . 6. ἐπεὶπῶςκρινεῖ : St. Paul and his readers alike held as axiomatic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection just urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must fall to the ground. ἑπεί : ‘ since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily implied injustice.’ Ἐπεί gets the meaning ‘ if so,’ ‘ if not’ , from the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated: here ἐπεί sc. εἰἄδικοςἔσταιὁἐπιφέρωντὴνὀργήν (cf. Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk. p. 359). τὸνκόσμον : all mankind. 7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God. εἰδε א A minusc. pauc., Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. text. RV. text.; εἰγάρ B D E G K L P &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. al., WH. marg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western. ἀλήθεια : the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; ψεῦσμα , the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as in ver. 4). κἀγώ : ‘ I too,’ as well as others, though my falsehood thus redounds to God’ s glory. St. Paul uses the first person from motives of delicacy, just as in 1 Corinthians 4:6 he ‘ transfers by a fiction’ to himself and his friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents. 8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle’ s mind: (i) the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever that evil may be done for the sake of good; (ii) the accusation brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil might be done for the sake of good. The single clause ποιήσωμεντὰκακὰἵναἔλθῃτὰἀγαθά is made to do duty for both these trains of thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with τί̣̣̣μή , in the other with λέγουσινὄτι . This could be brought out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation: τίἔτικἀγὼὡςἁμαρτωλός , κρίνομαὶκαὶ [τί ] μὴ — καθὼςβλασφημούμεθα , καὶκαθώςφασίτινεςἡμᾶςλέγεινὄτι — ποιήσωμενκ .τ .λ . There is a very similar construction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to the same words, εἰς [πρὸς ] τὴνἔνδειξιντῆςδικαιοσύνηςαὐτοῦ , and the words which follow the second time are meant to complete both clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar when in ch. 2 ver. 16 at once carries on and completes vv. 15 and 13. St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Antinomianism. What he said was, ‘ The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works; it is the gift of God.’ He was represented as saying ‘ therefore it does not matter what a man does’ — an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only here but in 6:1 ff., 15 ff. ὧντὸκρῖμακ .τ .λ . This points back to τίἔτικἀγὼκρίνομαι ; the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing; the judgement (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously unreal. FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO 3:9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the Gentiles any better? No. The same accusation covers both. The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, which is laid down in Psa_14 and graphically described in Pss. 5, 140, Psalms 5:10, in Isa_59, and again in Psa_34. And if the Jew is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he escape punishment; for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of Law, has proved a failure. Law can reveal sin, but not remove it. 9 To return from this digression. What inference are we to draw? Are the tables completely turned? Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (προεχόμεθα passive) by the Gentiles? Not at all. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in 1:18-32, 2:17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion of sin. 10The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus in Psa_14 [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, 11 that there is none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. 12 They have all (he says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much as a single right-doer among them. 13 This picture of universal wickedness may be completed from such details as those which are applied to the wicked in Psalms 5:9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in Psalms 140:3 [also exactly quoted]: the poison-bag of the asp lies under their smooth and flattering lips. 14 So, as it is described in Psalms 10:7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing and venom. 15 Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX of Isa 59:7, Isaiah 59:8]: They run with eager speed to commit murder. 16 Their course is marked by ruin and misery. 17 With smiling paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 18 To sum up the character of the ungodly in a word [from Psa_36(35):1 LXX]: The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions. 19 Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can claim exemption from the consequences of his sin. For when the Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, and that all mankind might be held accountable to God. 20 This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope to be declared righteous in God’ s sight. For the only effect of Law is to open men’ s eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable them to do better. That method, the method of works, has failed. A new method must be found. 9. τίοὖν ; ‘ What then [follows]?’ Not with προεχόμεθα , because that would require in reply οὐδὲνπάντως , not οὐπάντως . προεχόμεθα is explained in three ways: as intrans. in the same sense as the active προέχω , as trans. with its proper middle force, and as passive. (i) προεχόμεθα mid. = προέχομεν (praecellimus eos Vulg.; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, ἌραπερισσὸνἔχομενπαρὰτοὺςἜλληνας ; Euthym.-Zig. ἔχομέντιπλέονκαὶεὐδοκιμοῦμενοἱἸουδαῖοι ; Theoph. ‘ Do we think ourselves better?’ Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written προέχομεν , the common form in such contexts. (ii) προεχόμεθα trans. in its more ordinary middle sense, ‘ put forward as an excuse or pretext’ (‘ Do we excuse ourselves?’ RV. marg., ‘ Have we any defence?’ Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, and as we have just seen τίοὖν cannot be combined with προεχόμεθα because of οὐπάντως . (iii) προεχόμεθα passive, ‘ Are we excelled?’ ‘ Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?’ a rare use, but still one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Ot. Norv. III ad loc.). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV. The principal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted (ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile: how then does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew? The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ‘ advantage’ is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is historic, it lies in the possession of superior privileges; the practical equality of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition (ch. 2:17-29 balanced against ch. 1:18-32). In this latter respect St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places (2:25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take προεχόμεθα as pass., but give it the same sense as προέχομεν , ‘ Are we (Jews) preferred (to the Gentiles) in the sight of God?’ προεχόμεθα : v. l. προκατέχομενπερισσόν D* G, 31; Antiochene Fathers (Chrys. [ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus), also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS. but not the best, tenemus amplius): a gloss explaining προεχ . in the same way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. A L read προεχώμεθα . οὐπάντως . Strictly speaking οὐ should qualify πάντως , ‘ not altogether,’ ‘ not entirely,’ as in 1 Corinthians 5:10 οὐπάντωςτοῖςπόρνοιςτοῦκόσμουτούτου : but in some cases, as here, πάντως qualifies οὐ , ‘ altogether not,’ ‘ entirely not,’ i.e. ‘ not at all’ (nequaquam Vulg., οὐδαμῶς Theoph.). Compare the similar idiom in οὐπάνυ ; and see Win. Gr. lxi. 5. προῃτιασάμεθα : in the section 1:18-2:29. ὑφ ʼ ἁμαρτίαν . In Biblical Greek ὑπό with dat. has given place entirely to ὑπό with acc. Matthew 8:9 ἄνθρωπόςεἰμιὑπὸἐξουσίαν is a strong case. The change has already taken place in LXX; e.g Deuteronomy 33:3 πάντεςοἱἡγιασμένοιὑπὸτὰςχεῖράςσου , καὶοὗτοιὑπὸσέεἰσι . 10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of passages taken from different parts of the O. T., and with no apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the Rabbinical practice. ‘ A favourite method was that which derived its name from the stringing together of beads (Charaz), when a preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, from the Prophets and the Hagiographa’ (Edersheim, Life and Times, &c. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch— though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Romans 9:25 f.; 27 f.; 11:26 f.; 34 f.; 12:19 f.; 2 Corinthians 6:16. Here the passages are from Psa_14[13]:1-3 (= Psalms 53:1-3 [52:2-4]), ver. 1 free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; 5:9 [10] exact; 140:3 [139:4] exact: 10:7 [9:28] free; Isaiah 59:7, Isaiah 59:8 abridged; Psa_36 [35]. 1. The degree of relevance of each of these passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase: see also the additional note at the end of ch. 10. As a whole this conglomerate of quotations has had a curious history. The quotations in N.T. frequently react upon the text of O.T., and they have done so here: vv. 13-18 got imported bodily into Psa_14 [13 LXX] as an appendage to ver. 4 in the ‘ common’ text of the LXX (ἡκοινή , i.e. the unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd. א * B R U and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. א c a A), though the Greek commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so into Jerome’ s first edition of the Psalter , also into his second edition (the ‘ Gallican,’ based upon Origen’ s Hexapla), though marked with an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale’ s Bible (a.d. 1535); from thence into Matthew’ s Bible, which in the Psalter reproduces Coverdale (a.d. 1537), and also into the ‘ Great Bible’ (first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, whence it also bears the name of Cranmer’ s Bible, in 1540). The Psalter of the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an * to the passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks however had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome. They were not repeated in the Prayer-Book; so that English Churchmen still read the interpolated verses in Psa_14 with nothing to distinguish them from the rest of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. 16, he notes that St. Paul quoted Isaiah 59:7, Isaiah 59:8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, quod multi ignorantes, de tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus [στίχοι ] in editione Vulgata [i. e. the κοινή of the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601; comp. the preface to the same book, ibid. col. 568 f.; also the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 f.). 10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does indeed present some variants from the original, δίκαιος for ποιῶνχρηστότητα and οὐδὲεἷς for οὐκἔστινἕωςἑνός . In the LXX this clause is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul there keeps to his text; but we cannot be surprised that in the opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. The δίκαιος ‘ shall live by faith’ ; but till the coming of Christianity there was no true δίκαιος and no true faith. The verse runs too much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which is characteristic of St. Paul. 11. οὐκἔστινὁσυνιῶν : non est qui intelligat (rather than qui intelligit); Anglicè , ‘ there is none to understand.’ [But A B G, and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. text read συνιῶν , as also (B)C WH. text ἐκζητῶν , without the art. after LXX. This would = non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ‘ There is no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.’ ] ὁσυνιῶν : on the form see Win. Gr. § xiv, 16 (Exo_8; xiv, 3 E. T.); Hort, Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 174 f. Both forms, συνιέω and συνίω , are found, and either accentuation, συνιῶν or συνίων , may be adopted: probably the latter is to be preferred; cf. ἤφιε from ἀφίω Mark 1:34, Mark 11:16. 12. ἅμα : ‘ one and all.’ ἠχρειώθησαν : ב = ‘ to go bad,’ ‘ become sour,’ like milk; comp. the ἀχρεῖοςδοῦλος of Matthew 25:30. ποιῶν (sine artic.) A B G &c. WH. text. χρηστότητα = ‘ goodness’ in the widest sense, with the idea of ‘ utility’ rather than specially of ‘ kindness,’ as in 2:4. ἔωςἑνός : cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usque ad unum). B 67**, WH. marg. omit the second οὐκἔστιν [οὐκἔστινποιῶνχρηστότηταἔωςἑνός ]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver. 14 B 17 add αὐτῶν corresponding to αὐτοῦ in B’ s text of Psa 10:7 [9:28]. 13. τάφος … ἐδολιοῦσαν . The LXX of Psa 5:9 [10] corresponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather linguam suam blandam reddunt (poliunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur (Kautzsch, p. 34): ‘ their tongue do they make smooth’ Cheyne; ‘ smooth speech glideth from their tongue’ De Witt. ἐδολιοῦσαν : Win. Gr. § xiii, 14 (Exo_8; xiii, 2 f. E. T.). The termination -σαν , extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -μι to verbs in -ω , is widely found; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by no means confined to it; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by one grammarian a ‘ Boeotian’ form, as by others ‘ Alexandrian.’ ἰὸςἀσπίδων : Psalms 140:3 [139:4]. The position of the poison-bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more correctly referred to the bite (as in Numbers 21:9; Proverbs 23:32), than to the forked tongue (Job 20:16): see art. ‘ Serpent’ in D. B. 14.Psalms 10:7 somewhat freely from LXX [9:28]: οὗἀρᾶςτὸστόμααὐτοῦγέμεικαὶπικρίαςκαὶδόλου . St. Paul retains the rel. but changes it into the plural: στόμααὐτῶν B 17, Cypr., WH. marg. πικρία : ב more lit. = fraudes. 15-17. This quotation of Isa 59:7, Isaiah 59:8 is freely abridged from the LXX; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the original and the quotation side by side. Romans 3:15-17. Isaiah 59:7, Isaiah 59:8. ὀξεῖςοἱπόδεςαὐτῶνἐκχέαιαἷμα · σύντριμμακαὶταλαιπωρίαἐνταῖςὁδοῖςαὐτῶν , καὶὁδὸνεἰρήνηςοὐκἔγνωσαν . οἱδὲπόδεςαὐτῶν [ἐπὶπονηρίαντρέχουσι ] ταχινοὶἐκχέαιαἷμα [καὶοἱδιαλογισμοὶαὐτῶνδιαλογισμοὶἀπὸφόνων ]. σύντριμμακαὶταλαιπωρίαἐνταῖςὁδοῖςαὐτῶνκαὶὁδὸνεἰρήνηςοὐκοἴδασι [καὶοὐκἔστικρίσιςἐνταῖςὁδοῖςαὐτῶν ]. αἵμαἀναίτιον Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. [From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.] ἀφρόνων A א : οἴδασι א 1 B Q*, &c.: ἔγνωσαν A Q1 marg. (Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) minusc. aliq. 19. What is the meaning of this verse? Does it mean that the passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (ὁνόμος = O. T.; νόμοντὴνπαλαιὰνγραφὴνὀνομάζει , ἧςμέροςτὰπροφητικά Euthym.-Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also expect punishment, the Law (ὁνόμος = the Pentateuch) affirming the connexion between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpretations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held that— whatever happened to the Gentiles— they would escape.] The question really turns upon the meaning of ὁνόμος . It is urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where ὁνόμος clearly = O. T. (1 Corinthians 14:21, a quotation of Isa 28:11): compare however John 10:34 (= Psalms 82:6), 15:25 (= Psalms 35:19); (ii) that in the corresponding clause, τοῖςἐντῷνόμῳ must = the Law, in the narrower sense; (iii) that in ver. 21 the Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets. Yet these arguments are hardly decisive: for (i) the evidence is sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used ὁνόμος in the wider sense; for this one instance is as good as many; and (ii) we must not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense he was using; the use of the word in one sense would call up the other (cf. Note on ὁθάνατος in ch. 5:12). Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes ὁνόμος = Law in the abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of ὁνόμος . λέγει … λαλεῖ : λέγειν calls attention to the substance of what is spoken, λαλεῖν to the outward utterance; cf. esp. McClellan, Gospels, p. 383 ff. φραγῇ : cf. ἀναπολόγητος 1:20, 2:1; the idea comes up at each step in the argument. ὑπόδικο : not exactly ‘ guilty before God,’ but ‘ answerable to God.’ ὑπόδικος takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person injured to whom satisfaction is due (τῶνδιπλασίωνὑπόδικοςἔστωτῷβλαφθέντι Plato, Legg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has offended against God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic term. 20. διότι : ‘ because,’ not ‘ therefore,’ as AV. (see on 1:19). Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is nothing else to afford them protection. Law can open men’ s eyes to sin, but cannot remove it. Why this is so is shown in 7:7 ff. δικαιωθήσεται : ‘ shall be pronounced righteous,’ certainly not ‘ shall be made righteous’ (Lid.); the whole context has reference to a judicial trial and verdict. πᾶσασάρξ : man in his weakness and frailty (1 Corinthians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:24). ἐπίγνωσις : ‘ clear knowledge’ ; see on 1:28, 32. THE NEW SYSTEM 3:21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); (ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as man’ s need (vv. 22, 23); (iii) it is made possible by the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25); which Sacrifice at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness (vv. 25, 26). 21It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. We have seen what is the state of the world without it. But now, since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same time a means of acquiring righteousness to man— and that in complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to it. 22This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith, i. e. on ardent attachment and devotion to Jesus Messiah. And it is therefore no longer confined to any particular people like the Jews, but is thrown open without distinction to all, on the sole condition of believing, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. 23The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. All men alike have sinned; and all alike feel themselves far from the bright effulgence of God’ s presence. 24Yet estranged as they are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the Death of Christ Jesus. 25When the Messiah suffered upon the Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds assembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment or atonement: 26but this long forbearance on the part of God had in view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus. 21. νυνὶδέ : ‘ now,’ under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ‘ as it is,’ on the ground that the opposition is between two states, the state under Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order of time; so that νυνί may well have its first and most obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Romans 16:25, Romans 16:26 μυστηρίου … φανερωθέντος … νῦν , Ephesians 2:12, Ephesians 2:13 νυνὶδὲ … ἐγενήθητεἐγγύς , Colossians 1:26, Colossians 1:27 μυστήριοντὸἀποκεκρυμμένον … νῦνδὲἐφανερώθη , 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Timothy 1:10 χάριντὴνδοθεῖσαν … πρὸχρόνωναἰωνίωνφανερωθεῖσανδὲνῦν , Hebrews 9:26 νυνὶδὲἅπαξἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων … πεφανέρωται . It may be observed (i) that the N. T. writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the passages already enumerated Acts 17:30; Galatians 3:23, Galatians 3:25, Galatians 3:4:3, Galatians 3:4; Hebrews 1:1); and (ii) that φανεροῦσθαι is constantly used with expressions denoting time . The leading English commentators take this view. An allusion of Tertullian’ s makes it probable that Marcion retained this verse; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he cut out the whole of ch. 4, along with most other references to the history of Abraham (Tert. on Galatians 4:21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4). χωρὶςνόμου : ‘ apart from law,’ ‘ independently of it,’ not as a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Romans 10:4). δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ : see on ch. 1:17. St. Paul goes on to define his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially the righteousness of God; though the aspect in which it is regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective apprehension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer (ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic Law; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of attachment to a Divine Person. πεφανέρωται . Contrast the completed φανέρωσις in Christ and the continued ἀποκάλυψις in the Gospel (ch. 1:16): the verb φανεροῦσθαι is regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompaniments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ‘ manifested’ to the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5, 1 John 3:8: of the Atonement, Hebrews 9:26: of the risen Christ, Mark 16:12, Mark 16:14; John 21:14: of the future coming to Judgement, 1 Peter 5:4; 1 John 2:28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of the manifestation of Divine ‘ righteousness’ are 2 Timothy 1:10, which speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ‘ grace,’ and 1 John 1:2, which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the principle of ‘ life.’ μαρτυρουμένηκ . τ . λ .: another instance of the care with which St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and provided for: cf. Romans 1:2, Romans 3:31, the whole of ch. 4, 9:25-33; 10:16-21; 11:1-10, 26-29; 15:8-12; 16:26 &c. 22. δέ turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness which the Apostle here wishes to bring out; it is righteousness apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. 9:30; 1 Corinthians 2:6; Galatians 2:2; Philippians 2:8) happens to be from the general to the particular. πίστεωςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ : gen. of object, ‘ faith in Jesus Christ.’ This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out argument by Prof. Haussleiter of Greifswald (Der Glaube Jesu Christi u. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891). Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like the ‘ faith of Abraham’ in ch. 4:16, it denotes the faith (in God) which Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the Atonement, and that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held good, a number of other passages (notably 1:17) would be affected by it. But, although ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the πίστιςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ here with the πίστιςΘεοῦ in 3:3, which are really disparate; and it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance. ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . B, and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian, drop Ἰησοῦ (so too WH. marg.); A reads ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ . καὶἐπὶπάντας om. א * A B C, 47. 67**, Boh. Aeth. Arm., Clem.-Alex. Orig. Did. Cyr.-Alex. Aug.: ins. D E F G K L &c. ἐπὶπάντας alone is found in Jo. Damasc. Vulg. codd., so that εἰςπάνταςκαὶἐπὶπάντας would seem to be a conflation, or combination of two readings originally alternatives. If it were the true reading εἰς would express ‘ destination for’ all believers, ἐπί ‘ extension to’ them. 23. οὐγάρἐστιδιαστολή . The Apostle is reminded of one of his main positions. The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage over the Gentile; both alike need a righteousness which is not their own; and to both it is offered on the same terms. ἥμαρτον . In English we may translate this ‘ have sinned’ in accordance with the idiom of the language, which prefers to use the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by a clear interval from the present: see note on 2:12. ὑστεροῦνται : see Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 8 (3); mid. voice = ‘ feel want.’ Gif. well compares Matthew 19:20 τίἔτιὑστερῶ ; with Luke 15:14 καὶαὐτὸςἥρξατοὑστερεῖσθαι (subjective, the Prodigal begins to feel his destitution). τῆςδόξης . There are two wholly distinct uses of this word: (1) = ‘ opinion’ (a use not found in N. T.) and thence in particular ‘ favourable opinion,’ ‘ reputation’ (Romans 2:7, Romans 2:10; John 12:43 &c.); (2) by a use which came in with the LXX as translation of Heb. כ ּ ָ ב ו ֹ ד = (i) ‘ visible brightness or splendour’ (Acts 22:11; 1 Corinthians 15:40 ff.); and hence (ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God, the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:16), in the pillar of cloud (Exodus 16:10), in the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) or temple (1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chronicles 5:14), and specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Psalms 80:1; Exodus 25:22; Romans 9:4 &c.); (iii) this visible splendour symbolized the Divine perfections, ‘ the majesty or goodness of God as manifested to men’ (Lightfoot on Colossians 1:11; comp. Ephesians 1:6, Ephesians 1:12, Ephesians 1:17; Ephesians 3:16); (iv) these perfections are in a measure communicated to man through Christ (esp. 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 3:18). Both morally and physically a certain transfiguration takes place in the Christian, partially here, completely hereafter (comp. e.g. Romans 8:30 ἐδόξασεν with Romans 5:2 ἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδιτῆςδόξηςτοῦΘεοῦ , 8:18 τὴνμέλλουσανδόξανἀποκαλυφθῆναι , 2 Timothy 2:10 δόξηςαἰωνίου ). The Rabbis held that Adam by the Fall lost six things, ‘ the glory, life (immortality), his stature (which was above that of his descendants), the fruit of the field, the fruits of trees, and the light (by which the world was created, and which was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world to come).’ It is explained that ‘ the glory’ was a reflection from the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam’ s face (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 214). Clearly St. Paul conceives of this glory as in process of being recovered: the physical sense is also enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and spiritual. The meaning of δόξα in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. 7:42 [ed. Bensly = vi. 14 O. F. Fritzsche, p. 607], where the state of the blessed is described as neque meridiem, neque noctem, neque ante lucem [perh. for antelucium; vid. Bensly ad loc.], neque nitorem, neque claritatem, neque lucem, nisi solummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. = ἀπαύγασμαδόξηςὙψίστου ]. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgebit claritas; Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. Revelation 21:24). The blessed themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God: ibid. vv. 97, 98 [Bensly = 71, 72 O. F. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet vultus eorum fulgere sicut sol, et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari lumini … festinant enim videre vultum [eius] cui serviunt viventes et a quo incipient gloriosi mercedem recipere (cf. Matthew 13:43). 24. δικαιούμενοι . The construction and connexion of this word are difficult, and perhaps not to be determined with certainty. (i) Many leading scholars (De W. Mey. Lips. Lid. Win. Gr. § xlv. 6 b) make δικαιούμενοι mark a detail in, or assign a proof of, the condition described by ὑστεροῦνται . In this case there would be a slight stress on δωρεάν : men are far from God’ s glory, because the state of righteousness has to be given them; they do nothing for it. But this is rather far-fetched. No such proof or further description of ὑστεροῦνται is needed. It had already been proved by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles; and to prove it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion of the logical order. (ii) ὑστεροῦνταιδικαιούμενοι is taken as = ὑστεροῦνταικαὶδικαιοῦνται (Fri.) or = ὑστερούμενοιδικαιοῦνται (Tholuck). But this is dubious Greek. (iii) δικαιούμενοι is not taken with what precedes, but is made to begin a new clause. In that case there is an anacoluthon, and we must supply some such phrase as πῶςκαυχώμεθα ; (Oltr.). But that would be harsh, and a connecting particle seems wanted. (iv) Easier and more natural than any of these expedients seems to be, with Va. and Ewald, to make οὐγάρ … ὑστεροῦνται practically a parenthesis, and to take the nom. δικαιούμενοι ‘ as suggested by πάντες in ver. 23, but in sense referring rather to τοὺςπιστεύοντας in ver. 22.’ No doubt such a construction would be irregular, but it may be questioned whether it is too irregular for St. Paul. The Apostle frequently gives a new turn to a sentence under the influence of some expression which is really subordinate to the main idea. Perhaps as near a parallel as any would be 2 Corinthians 8:18, 2 Corinthians 8:19 συνεπέμψαμενδὲτὸνἀδελφὸν … οὗὁἔπαινοςἐντῷεὐαγγελίῳ … οὐμόνονδέ , ἀλλὰκαὶχειροτονηθείς (as if ὃςἐπαινεῖται had preceded). δωρεὰντῇαὐτοῦχάριτι . Each of these phrases strengthens the other in a very emphatic way, the position of αὐτοῦ further laying stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one which is mentioned . ἀπολυτρώσεως . It is contended, esp. by Oltramare, (i) that λυτρόω and ἀπολυτρόω in classical Greek = not ‘ to pay a ransom,’ but ‘ to take a ransom,’ ‘ to put to ransom,’ or ‘ release on ransom,’ as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of ἀπολύτρωσις is Plut. Pomp. 24 πολέωναἰχμαλώτωνἀπολυτρώσεις , where the word has this sense of ‘ putting to ransom’ ); (ii) that in LXX λυτροῦσθαι is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt, the Exodus, in which there is no question of ransom (so Exodus 6:6, Exodus 6:15:13; Deuteronomy 7:8; Deuteronomy 9:26; Deuteronomy 13:5, &c.: cf. also ἀπολυτρώσει Exodus 21:8, of the ‘ release’ of a slave by her master). The subst. ἀπολύτρωσις occurs only in one place, Daniel 4:30 [29 or 32], LXX ὁχρόνοςμουτῆςἀπολυτρώσεωςἦλθε of Nebuchadnezzar`s recovery from his madness. Hence it is inferred (cf. also Westcott, ב p. 296, and Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versö hn. ii. 220 ff.) that here and in similar passages ἀπολύτρωσις denotes ‘ deliverance’ simply without any idea of ‘ ransom.’ There is no doubt that this part of the metaphor might be dropped. But in view of the clear resolution of the expression in Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) δοῦναιτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦλύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν , and in 1 Timothy 2:6 ὁδοὺςἑαυτὸνἀντίλυτρονὑπὲρπάντων , and in view also of the many passages in which Christians are said to be ‘ bought,’ or ‘ bought with a price’ (1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 6:7:23; Galatians 3:13; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 5:9: cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19), we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea of the λύτρον retains its full force, that it is identical with the τιμή , and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. The emphasis is on the cost of man’ s redemption. We need not press the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to whom the ransom or price was paid. It was required by that ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what it has been; but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp or gauge. τῆςἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ . We owe to Haussleiter (Der Glaube Jesu Christi, p. 116) the interesting observation that wherever the phrase ἐνΧριστῷ or ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ occurs there is no single instance of the variants ἐνἸησοῦ or ἐνἸησοῦΧριστῷ . This is significant, because in other combinations the variants are frequent. It is also what we should expect, because ἐνΧριστῷ and ἐνΧριστῷἸης . always relate to the glorified Christ, not to the historic Jesus. 25. προέθετο may = either (i) ‘ whom God proposed to Himself,’ ‘ purposed,’ ‘ designed’ (Orig. Pesh.); or (ii) ‘ whom God set forth publicly’ (proposuit Vulg.). Both meanings would be in full accordance with the teaching of St. Paul both elsewhere and in this Epistle. For (i) we may compare the idea of the Divine πρόθεσις in ch. 9:11(8:28); Ephesians 3:11 (1:11); 2 Timothy 1:9; also 1 Peter 1:20. For (ii) compare esp. Galatians 3:1 οἷςκατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοὺςἸησοῦςΧριστὸςπροεγράφηἐσταυρωμένος . But when we turn to the immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity that the latter sense seems preferable. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which appeal can be made. ἱλαστήριον : usually subst. meaning strictly ‘ place or vehicle of propitiation,’ but originally neut. of adj. ἱλαστήριος (ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα Exodus 25:16 [17], where however Gif. takes the two words as substantives in apposition). In LXX of the Pentateuch, as in Hebrews 9:5, the word constantly stands for the ‘ lid of the ark,’ or ‘ mercy-seat,’ so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. A number of the best authorities (esp. Gif. Va. Lid. Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versohn. ii.169 ff. Exo_2) take the word here in this sense, arguing (i) that it suits the emphatic αὐτοῦ in ἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι ; (ii) that through LXX it would be by far the most familiar usage; (iii) that the Greek commentators (as Gif. has shown in detail) unanimously give it this sense; (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory, ‘ the true Shekinah,’ and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in the culminating service of Atonement. But, on the other hand, there is great harshness, not to say confusion, in making Christ at once priest and victim and place of sprinkling. Origen it is true does not shrink from this; he says expressly invenies igitur … esse ipsum et propitiatorium et pontificem et hostiam quae offertur pro populo (in Rom. iii. 8, p. 3 Lomm.). But although there is a partial analogy for this in Hebrews 9:11-14, 23-10:22, where Christ is both priest and victim, it is straining the image yet further to identify Him with the ἱλαστήριον . The Christian ἱλαστήριον , or ‘ place of sprinkling,’ in the literal sense, is rather the Cross. It is also something of a point that the sprinkling of the mercy-seat was just the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people. Another way of taking ἱλαστήριον is to supply with it θῦμα on the analogy of σωτήριον , τελεστήριον , χαριστήριον . This too is strongly supported (esp. by the leading German commentators, De W. Fri. Mey. Lips.). But there seems to be no clear instance of ἱλαστήριον used in this sense. Neither is there satisfactory proof that ἱλαστ . (subst.) = in a general sense ‘ instrument or means of propitiation.’ It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. accus. masc. added as predicate to ὅν . There is evidence that the word was current as an adj. at this date (ἱλαστήριονμνῆμα Joseph. Antt. XVI. vii. 1; ἱλαστηρίουθανάτου 4 Macc. 17:22* , and other exx.). The objection that the adj. is not applied properly to persons counts for very little, because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of a person. Here however it is just this personal element which is most important. It agrees with the context that the term chosen should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of such sacrifice. The Latin versions do not help us: they give all three renderings, propitiatorium, propitiatorem, and propitiationem. Syr. is also ambiguous. The Coptic clearly favours the masc. rendering adopted above. It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject of Atonement. ‘ When a man thinks, I will just go on sinning and repent later, no help is given him from above to make him repent. He who thinks, I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgiveness, such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone; offences of man against his fellow-man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has given satisfaction to his fellow-man’ ; and more to the same effect (Mishnah, Tract. Joma, Viii. 9, ap. Winter u. Wü nsche, Jü d. Lit. p. 98). We get a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta, Tract. Joma, v: ‘ R. Ismael said, Atonement is of four kinds. He who transgresses a positive command and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture, “ Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:23 [22]). He who transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atonement held in suspense by his repentance, and the Day of Atonement makes it effectual, according to the Scripture, “ For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed extermination or capital punishment and repents, his repentance and the Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense, and suffering brings it home, according to the Scripture, “ I will visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes” (Psalms 89:33 [32]). But when a man profanes the Name of God and repents, his repentance has not the power to keep atonement in suspense, and the Day of Atonement has not the power to atone, but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third, and the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture, “ Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die” (Isaiah 22:14). This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. Sin-offering and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no atonement without repentance, because it is written in Leviticus 23:21 (?) “ Only,” i.e. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement, otherwise he obtains no atonement’ (op. cit. p. 154). διὰτῆςπίστεως : διὰπίστεως א C D F G 67** al., Tisch. WH. text. The art. seems here rather more correct, pointing back as it would do to διὰπίστεωςἸ . Χ . in ver. 22; it is found in B and the mass of later authorities, but there is a strong phalanx on the other side; B is not infallible in such company (cf. 11:6). ἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι : not with πίστεως (though this would be a quite legitimate combination; see Gif. ad loc.), but with προέθετοἱλαστήριον : the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal idea, not secondary. The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of life (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11; Deuteronomy 12:23). Hence the death of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life; the application of the blood was an application of life; and the offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. In this lay more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott, Ep. Jo. p. 34 ff.; ב p. 293 f.). For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected below. εἰςἔνδειξιν : εἰς denotes the final and remote object, πρός the nearer object. The whole plan of redemption from its first conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God’ s Righteousness. And the same exhibition of righteousness was kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan, viz. the forbearance which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. For the punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. For ἔνδειξιν see on ch. 2:15: here too the sense is that of ‘ proof by an appeal to fact.’ εἰςἔνδειξιντῆςδικαιοσύνηςαὐτοῦ . In what sense can the Death of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over sin. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act, the nature of which we are not able wholly to understand, but which at least presents analogies to the rite of sacrifice, and to that particular form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical; and its wide diffusion showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially appropriate to that particular stage in the world’ s development. Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 4:1-8. Take the crucial case of Abraham. He, like the Christian, was declared righteous, not on account of his works— as something earned, but by the free gift of God in response to his faith. And David describes a similar state of things. The happiness of which he speaks is due, not to sinlessness but to God’ s free forgiveness of sins. 1Objector. You speak of the history of Abraham. Surely he, the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish race, might plead privilege and merit. 2If we Jews are right in supposing that God accepted him as righteous for his works— those illustrious acts of his— he has something to boast of. St. Paul. Perhaps he has before men, but not before God. 3For look at the Word of God, that well-known passage of Scripture, Genesis 15:6. What do we find there? Nothing about works, but ‘ Abraham put faith in God,’ and it (i. e. his faith) was credited to him as if it were righteousness. 4This proves that there was no question of works. For a workman claims his pay as a debt due to him; it is not an act of favour. 5But to one who is not concerned with works but puts faith in God Who pronounces righteous not the actually righteous (in which there would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly— to such an one his faith is credited for righteousness. 6Just as again David in Psa_32 describes how God ‘ pronounces happy’ (in the highest sense) those to whom he attributes righteousness without any reference to works: 7‘ Happy they,’ he says,— not ‘ who have been guilty of no breaches of law,’ but ‘ whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are veiled from sight. 8A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will not enter in His book.’ 1 ff. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure, due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines of thought with the main lines. The proposition which the Apostle sets himself to prove is that Law, and more particularly the Pentateuch, is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches. But the way of putting this is affected by two thoughts, which still exert some influence from the last chapter, (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew, (ii) the pride or boasting which was a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which St. Paul held to be ‘ excluded.’ Hitherto these two points have been considered in the broadest and most general manner, but St. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case of Abraham. The case of Abraham was the centre and stronghold of the whole Jewish position. If therefore it could be shown that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the Jewish, the latter broke down altogether. This is what St. Paul now undertakes to prove; but at the outset he glances at the two side issues— main issues in ch. 3 which become side issues in ch. 4— the claim of ‘ advantage,’ or special privilege, and the pride which the Jewish system generated. For the sake of clearness we put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. He is of course still a supposed objector; St. Paul is really arguing with himself; but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on 3:1 ff.). 1. The first question is one of reading. There is an important variant turning upon the position or presence of εὑρηκέναι . (1) K L P, &c., Theodrt; and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after τὸνπροπάτοραἡμῶν . It is then taken with κατὰσάρκα : ‘ What shall we say that A. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace of God?’ So Bp. Bull after Theodoret. [Euthym.-Zig. however, even with this reading, takes κατὰσάρκα with πατέρα : ὑπερβατὸνγὰρτὸκατὰσάρκα ]. But this is inconsistent with the context. The question is not, what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or without it, but whether the new system professed by St. Paul left him any gain or advantage at all. (2) א A C D E F G, some cursives, Vulg. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. and others, place after ἐροῦμεν . In that case κατὰσάρκα goes not with εὑρηκέναι but with τὸνπροπάτοραἡμῶν which it simply defines, ‘ our natural progenitor.’ (3) But a small group, B, 47*, and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment, though the printed editions give it in his text, omit εὑρηκέναι altogether. Then the idea of ‘ gain’ drops out and we translate simply ‘ What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather?’ &c. The opponents of B will say that the sense thus given is suspiciously easy: it is certainly more satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. The point is not what Abraham got by his righteousness, but how he got his righteousness— by the method of works or by that of faith. Does the nature of A.’ s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system, or with St. Paul’ s? The idea of ‘ gain’ was naturally imported from ch. 3:1, 9. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group, and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. We therefore regard the omission of εὑρηκέναι as probable with WH. text Tr. RV. marg. For the construction comp. John 1:15 οὗτοςἦνὀ͂νεἶπον . 1-5. One or two small questions of form may be noticed. In ver. 1 προπάτορα (א etc A B C al.) is decisively attested for πατέρα , which is found in the later MSS. and commentators. In ver. 3 the acute and sleepless critic Origen thinks that St. Paul wrote Ἀβράμ (with Heb. of Gen_15; cf. Genesis 17:5), but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted Ἀβραάμ . It is more probable that St. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout: he quotes Genesis 17:5 in ver. 17. In ver. 5 a small group (א D* F G) have ἀσεβἠν , on which form see WH. Introd. App. p. 157 f.; Win. Gr. Exo_8, § 9:8; Tisch. on Hebrews 6:19. In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western, but not in others. τὸνπροπάτοραἡμῶν . This description of Abraham as ‘ our forefather’ is one of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. St. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. For instance in writing to the Corinthians, who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles, he speaks cf ‘ our fathers’ as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1 Corinthians 10:1). There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers, Jew and Gentile alike,— though it is true that he would have added ‘ not after the flesh but after the spirit.’ Gif. notes the further point, that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with Orig. Chrys. Phot. Euthym.-Zig. Lips. he connects τὸνπροπάτ . ἡμ . with κατὰσάρκα . It should be mentioned, however, that Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. p. 23 f.) though relegating εὑρηκέναι to the margin, still does not take κατὰσάρκα with τὸνπροπάτοραἡμῶν . 2. καύχημα : ‘ Not materies gloriandi as Meyer, but rather gloriatio, as Bengel, who however might have added facta’ (T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Corinthians 5:6). The termination -μα denotes not so much the thing done as the completed, determinate, act; for other examples see esp. Evans ut sup. It would not be wrong to translate here ‘ has a ground of boasting,’ but the idea of ‘ ground’ is contained in ἕχει , or rather in the context. ἀλλ ʼ οὐπρὸςτὸνΘεόν . It seems best to explain the introduction of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the paraphrase. There should be a colon after καύχημα . St. Paul does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a καύχημα absolutely— before man he might have it and the Jews were not wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory,— but it was another thing to have a καύχημα before God. There is a stress upon τὸνΘεόν which is taken up by τῷΘεῷ in the quotation. ‘ A. could not boast before God. He might have done so if he could have taken his stand on works; but works did not enter into the question at all. In God he put faith.’ On the history and application of the text Genesis 15:6, see below. 3. ἐλογίσθη : metaphor from accounts, ‘ was set down,’ here ‘ on the credit side.’ Frequently in LXX with legal sense of imputation or non-imputation of guilt, e.g. Leviticus 7:8 ἐὰνδὲφαγὼνφάγῃ … οὐλογισθήσεταιαὐτῷ , 17:4 λογισθήσεταιτῷἀνθρώπῳἐκείνῳαἷμα , &c. The notion arises from that of the ‘ book of remembrance’ (Malachi 3:16) in which men’ s good or evil deeds, the wrongs and sufferings of the saints, are entered (Psalms 56:8; Isaiah 65:6). Oriental monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the merit or demerit of their subjects (Esther 6:1 ff.), and in like manner on the judgement day Jehovah would have the ‘ books’ brought out before Him (Daniel 7:10; Revelation 20:12; comp. also ‘ the books of the living,’ ‘ the heavenly tablets,’ a common expression in the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, and Test. XII Patr., on which see Charles on Enoch xlvii. 3; and in more modern times, Cowper’ s sonnet ‘ There is a book … wherein the eyes of God not rarely look’ ). The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 233). They had also the idea of the transference of merit and demerit from one person to another (ibid. p. 280 ff.; Ezekiel 18:2; John 9:2). That however is not in question here; the point is that one quality faith is set down, or credited, to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another quality— righteousness. ἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην : was reckoned as equivalent to, as standing in the place of, ‘ righteousness.’ The construction is common in LXX: cf. 1 Reg. (Sam.) 1:13; Job 61:23 (24); Isaiah 29:17 ( = 32:15); Lamentations 4:2; Hosea 8:12. The exact phrase ἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιος . recurs in Psa_105 [106]. 31 of the zeal of Phinehas. On the grammar cf. Win. § xxix. 3 a. (p. 229, ed. Moulton). On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. Weber, Altsyn. Palä st. Theologie, p. 255 ff. Abraham was the only righteous man of his generation; therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy People. He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew beforehand by a kind of intuition. He was the first of seven righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had retired into the seventh heaven, so that in the days of Moses it could take up its abode in the Tabernacle (ibid. p. 183). According to the Jews the original righteousness of Abraham, who began to serve God at the age of three (ibid. p. 118) was perfected (1) by his circumcision, (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. But the Jews also (on the strength of Gen 15:6) attached a special importance to Abraham’ s faith, as constituting merit (see Mechilta on Exodus 14:31, quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. and by Lightfoot in the extract given below). 4, 5. An illustration from common life. The workman earns his pay, and can claim it as a right. Therefore when God bestows the gift of righteousness, of His own bounty and not as a right, that is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than works, viz. by faith. 5. ἐπὶτὸνδικαιοῦντα : ‘ on Him who pronounces righteous’ or ‘ acquits,’ i.e. God. It is rather a departure from St. Paul’ s more usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather than God the Son. But even here the Christian scheme is in view, and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that scheme. See on 1:8, 17, above. We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym.-Zig. τουτέστιπιστεύοντιὅτιδύναταιὁΘεὸςτὸνἐνἀσεβείᾳβεβιωκύτα , τοῦτονἐξαιφνηςοὐμόνονἐλευθερῶσαικολάσεως , ἀλλὰκαὶδίκαιονποιῆσαι . The evidence is too decisive (p. 30 f. sup.) that δικαιοῦν = not ‘ to make righteous’ but ‘ to declare righteous as a judge.’ It might however be inferred from ἐξαίφνης that δίκαιονποιῆσαι was to be taken somewhat loosely in the sense of ‘ treat as righteous.’ The Greek theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification. τὸνἀσεβῆ : not meant as a description of Abraham, from whose case St. Paul is now generalizing and applying the conclusion to his own time. The strong word ἀσεβῆ is probably suggested by the quotation which is just coming from Psalms 32:1. 6. Δαβίδ . Both Heb. and LXX ascribe Psa_32 to David. In two places in the N. T., Acts 4:25, Acts 4:26 (= Psalms 2:1, Psalms 2:2), Hebrews 4:7 (= Psalms 95:7) Psalms are quoted as David’ s which have no title in the Hebrew (though Psa_95 [94] bears the name of David in the LXX), showing that by this date the whole Psalter was known by his name. Psa_32 was one of those which Ewald thought might really be David’ s: see Driver, Introduction, p. 357. τὸνμακαρισμόν : not ‘ blessedness,’ which would be μακαριότης but a ‘ pronouncing blessed’ ; μακαρίζειντινα = ‘ to call a person blessed or happy’ (τούςτεγὰρθεοὺςμακαρίζομεν … καὶτῶνἀνδρῶντοὺςθειοτάτουςμακαρίζομεν Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 12:4; comp. Euthym.- Zig. ἐπίτασιςδὲκαὶκορυφὴτιμῆςκαὶδόξηςὁμακαρισμός , ‘ Felicitation is the strongest and highest form of honour and praise’ ). St. Paul uses the word again Galatians 4:15. Who is it who thus pronounces a man blessed? God. The Psalm describes how He does so. 7, 8. Μακάριοι , κ .τ .λ . This quotation of Psa 32:1, Psalms 32:2 is the same in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his interpretation of Gen 15:6. μακάριοι is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest to the gods among men. ᾧοὐμή . So א c A C Dc F K L &c.: οὗοὐμή א B D E (?) G, 67**. οὗ is also the reading of LXX (ᾧ ש ׂ א ca Ra). The authorities for οὗ are superior as they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission (א B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that ᾧ has been assimilated to the construction of λογίζεσθαι in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that οὗ has been assimilated to the preceding ὧν or to the O.T. or that it has been affected by the following οὐ : ᾧ naturally established itself as the more euphonious reading. ὐμὴλογίσηται . There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real emphasis appears to be intended, ‘ Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon’ : see Ell. on 1 Thessalonians 4:15 [p. 154], and Win. § Lev_3, p. 634 f. The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by St. James It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament writers should use the same leading example and should quote the same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Genesis 15:6, as the salient characterization of that history; and they draw from it the conclusion— St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous πίστειχωρὶςἔργων (Romans 3:28; cf. 4:1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is accounted righteous ἐξἔργωνκαὶοὐκἐκπίστεωςμόνον (James 2:24). We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. Genesis 15:6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham’ s life, the offering of Isaac (James 2:21). St. Paul also appeals to particular incidents, Abraham’ s belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Romans 4:18), and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Romans 4:19-21). The difference is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the Book of Genesis; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, has recourse to the context of Abraham’ s life, and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense. The fact is that St. James and St. Paul mean different things by ‘ faith,’ and as was natural they impose these different meanings on the Book of Genesis, and adapt the rest of their conclusions to them. When St. James heard speak of ‘ faith,’ he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the fundamental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (James 2:19). Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews’ ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the ‘ Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory’ (James 2:1). He takes that belief for granted; it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality . If he were questioned about it, he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ‘ good’ man; and this did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given of its sincerity? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed Matthew Arnold’ s proposition that ‘ Conduct is three-fourths of life.’ He therefore demands— and from his point of view rightly demands— that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting them in practice. St. Paul’ s is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a very different experience. With him too Christianity is something added to an earlier belief in God; but the process by which it was added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature. It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano’ s side. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ; there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul is going on presently to say this (Romans 6:1, Romans 6:12, Romans 6:15), as his opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough. If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that either was writing with direct reference to the other? Did St. Paul mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment; but that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ‘ faith’ as a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was condemning. It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting-ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse, Genesis 15:6, and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Galatians, p. 157 ff., Exo_2) that Genesis 15:6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: ‘ Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness’ (1 Macc. 2:52)? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at length: ‘ Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel’ s having believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them … In like manner thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord; for it is said, “ and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness” ’ (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 160). Taking these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to this particular text: and it was indeed inevitable that it should be so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch. It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the bearing of Gen 15:6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was essentially a Christian controversy; it had its origin in the special and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other. It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We have seen that there are strong reasons against this*. We do not think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece, the scene of St. Paul’ s labours; and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul’ s fanatical enemies, it would be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Paul’ s hearers had really understood him!) and often more or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle’ s teaching, should reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would do. He names no names, and attacks no man’ s person. He does not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places like Romans 6:1ff., Romans 6:15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible misconstruction. FAITH AND 4:9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was circumcised; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised. 9Here we have certain persons pronounced ‘ happy.’ Is this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also apply to the uncircumcised Gentile? Certainly it may. For there is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was credited to Abraham as righteousness. 10And the historical circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 11And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the spiritual father alike of two divergent classes: at once of believing Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they too might be credited with righteousness; 12and at the same time of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham’ s faith— that faith which was his before his circumcision. 10. St. Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine recognition of Abraham’ s faith came in order of time before his circumcision: the one recorded in Genesis 15:6, the other in Genesis 17:10ff. Therefore although it might be (and was) confirmed by circumcision, it could not be due to it or conditioned by it. 11. σημεῖονπεριτομῆς . Circumcision at its institution is said to be ἐνσημείῳδιαθήκης (Genesis 17:11), between God and the circumcised. The gen. περιτομῆς is a genitive of apposition or identity, a sign ‘ consisting in circumcision,’ ‘ which was circumcision.’ Some authorities (A C* al.) read περιτομήν . σφραγῖδα . The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of a child runs thus: ‘ Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved from the womb, and put His ordinance upon His flesh, and sealed His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.’ Comp. Targum Cant. iii. 8 ‘ The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham’ ; Shemoth R. 19 ‘ Ye shall not eat of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh.’ Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc. (cf. also Delitzsch). At a very early date the same term σφραγίς was transferred from the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. See the passages collected by Lightfoot on 2 Clem. vii. 6 (Clem. Rom. ii. 226), also Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc., and Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 295. Dr. Hatch connects the use of the term with ‘ the mysteries and some forms of foreign cult’ ; and it may have coalesced with language borrowed from these; but in its origin it appears to be Jewish. A similar view is taken by Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum (Gö ttingen, 1894), p. 120 ff., where the Christian use of the word σφραγίς is fully discussed. Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to, and refute, the Jewish doctrine which he puts in the mouth of an objector: ἀλλ ʼ ἐρεῖς · Καὶμὴνπεριτέτμηταιὁλαὸςεἰςσφραγῖδα . ἀλλὰπᾶςΣύροςκαὶ῎Αραψκαὶπάντεςοἱἱερεῖςτῶνεἰδώλων . ἆραοὖνκἀκεῖνοιἐκτῆςδιαθήκηςαὐτῶνεἰσίν ; ἀλλὰκαὶοἱΑἰγύπτιοιἐνπεριτομῇεἰσίν . The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. εἰςτὸεἶναι , κ .τ .λ . Even circumcision, the strongest mark of Jewish separation, in St. Paul’ s view looked beyond its immediate exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham’ s faith. Faith was the real motive power; and as applied to the present condition of things, Abraham’ s faith in the promise had its counterpart in the Christian’ s faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i.e. in Christ). Thus a new division was made. The true descendants of Abraham were not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i.e. all Jews whether believing or not), but those who imitated his faith (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles). εἰςτό denotes that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. πατέραπάντωντῶνπιστευόντων . Delitzsch (ad loc.) quotes one of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is called ‘ the first of my faithful ones.’ He also adduces a passage, Jerus. Gemara on Biccurim, i. 1, in which it is proved that even the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his א ֲ ב ו ֹ ת ֵ י כ ו ּ because Abram became Abraham, ‘ father of many nations,’ lit. ‘ a great multitude’ ; ‘ he was so,’ the Glossator adds, ‘ because he taught them to believe.’ δι ʼ ἀκροβυστίας : ‘ though in a state of uncircumcision.’ διά of attendant circumstances as in διὰγράμματοςκαὶπεριτομῆς ii. 27, τῷδιὰπροσκόμματοςἐσθίοντι xiv. 20. 12. τοῖςστοιχοῦσι . As it stands the art. is a solecism: it would make those who are circumcised one set of persons, and those who follow the example of Abraham’ s faith another distinct set, which is certainly not St. Paul’ s meaning. He is speaking of Jews who are both circumcised and believe. This requires in Greek the omission of the art. before στοιχοῦσιν . But τοῖςστ . is found in all existing MSS. We must suppose therefore either (1) that there has been some corruption. WH. think that τοῖς may be the remains of an original αὐτοῖς : but that would not seen to be a very natural form of sentence. Or (2) we may think that Tertius made a slip of the pen in following St. Paul’ s dictation, and that this remained uncorrected. If the slip was not made by Tertius himself, it must have been made in some very early copy, the parent of all our present copies. στοιχοῦσι . στοιχεῖν is a well-known military term, meaning strictly to ‘ march in file’ : Pollux viii. 9 τὸδὲβαθοςστοῖχοςκαλεῖται , καὶτὸμὲνἐφεξῆςεἶναικατὰμῆκοςζυγεῖν · τὸδὲἐφεξῆςκατὰβάθοςστοιχεῖν , ‘ the technical term for marching abreast is ζυγεῖν , for marching in depth or in file, στοιχεῖν ’ (Wets.). On οὐμόνον rather than μὴμόνον in this verse and in ver. 16 see Burton, M. and T. § 481. Jewish Teaching on Circumcision The fierce fanaticism with which the Jews insisted upon the rite of Circumcision is vividly brought out in the Book of Jubilees (xv. 25 ff.): ‘ This law is for all generations for ever, and there is no circumcision of the time, and no passing over one day out of the eight days; for it is an eternal ordinance, ordained and written on the heavenly tables. And every one that is born, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day, belongs not to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham, for he belongs to the children of destruction; nor is there moreover any sign on him that he is the Lord’ s, but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth, and to be rooted out of the earth, for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. … And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their sons according to all this law; for in the flesh of their circumcision they will omit this circumcision of their sons, and all of them, sons of Belial, will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, according as they have not observed the ordinance of this law; for they treat their members like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted out of the land. And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for them, so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin of this error for ever.’ So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God’ s favour that if an Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 51 f.). When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took a part in the act (ibid. p. 253). It was his circumcision and anticipatory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the ‘ father of many nations’ (ibid. p. 256). Indeed it was just through his circumcision that Isaac was born of a ‘ holy seed.’ This was the current doctrine. And it was at the root of it that St. Paul strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision, that the latter was wholly subordinate to the former, and that just those privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision were really due to Faith. PROMISE AND LAW 4:13-17. Again the declaration that was made to Abraham had nothing to do with Law. For it turned on Faith and Promise which are the very antithesis of Law. The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, and that Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise. 13Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. The promise made to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide Messianic rule, as it was not dependent upon Circumcision, so also was not dependent upon Law, but on a righteousness which was the product of Faith. 14If this world-wide inheritance really depended upon any legal system, and if it was limited to those who were under such a system, there would be no place left for Faith or Promise: Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. 15For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. It only serves to bring down God’ s wrath by enhancing the guilt of sin. Where there is no law, there is no transgression, which implies a law to be transgressed. Law and Promise therefore are mutually exclusive; the one brings death, the other life. 16Hence it is that the Divine plan was made to turn, not on Law and obedience to Law, but on Faith. For faith on man’ s side implies Grace, or free favour, on the side of God. So that the Promise depending as it did not on Law but on these broad conditions, Faith and Grace, might hold good equally for all Abraham’ s descendants— not only for those who came under the Mosaic Law, but for all who could lay claim to a faith like his. 17Thus Abraham is the true ancestor of all Christians , as it is expressly stated in Genesis 17:5 ‘ A father’ (i.e. in spiritual fatherhood) ‘ of many nations have I made thee*.’ 13-17. In this section St. Paul brings up the key-words of his own system Faith, Promise, Grace, and marshals them in array over against the leading points in the current theology of the Jews— Law, Works or performance of Law, Merit. Because the working of this latter system had been so disastrous, ending only in condemnation, it was a relief to find that it was not what God had really intended, but that the true principles of things held out a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful, and one which furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in Christianity. 13. οὐγάρ , κ .τ .λ . The immediate point which this paragraph is introduced to prove is that Abraham might be, in a true though spiritual sense, the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. The ulterior object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but by Christians. διὰνόμου : without art., any system of law. ἡἐπαγγελία : see on ch. 1:2 , where the uses of the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. At the time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race was turned to the promises contained in the O. T.; and in Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head and definitely identified with their fulfilment. The following examples may be added to those quoted on ch. 1:2 to illustrate the diffusion of this idea of ‘ Promise’ among the Jews in the first century a.d.: 4 Ezra 4:27 non capiet portare quae in temporibus iustis repromissa sunt; vii. 14 si ergo non ingredientes ingressi fuerint qui vivuni angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita (= τὰἀποκεἰμενα Genesis 49:10); ibid. 49 (119) ff. quid enim nobis prodest si promissum est nobis immortale tempus, nos vero mortalia opera egimus? &c. Apoc. Baruch. xiv. 13 propter hoc etiam ipsi sine timore relinquunt mundum istum, et fidentes in laetitia sperant se recepturos mundum quem promisisti eis. It will be observed that all these passages are apocalyptic and eschatological. The Jewish idea of Promise is vague and future; the Christian idea is definite and associated with a state of things already inaugurated. τὸκληρονόμοναὐτὸνεἶναικόσμου . What Promise is this? There is none in these words. Hence (1) some think that it means the possession of the Land of Canaan (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:14 f.; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:8; cf. 26:3; Exodus 6:4) taken as a type of the world-wide Messianic reign; (2) others think that it must refer to the particular promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing— that A. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. Probably this is meant in the first instance, but the whole series of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. should have a son; (ii) that this son should have numerous descendants; (iii) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be blessed; (iv) that through Him A.’ s seed should enjoy world-wide dominion. διὰδικαιοσύνηςπίστεως : this ‘ faith-righteousness’ which St. Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian, and before him of Abraham. 14. οἱἐκνόμου : ‘ the dependants of law,’ ‘ vassals of a legal system,’ such as were the Jews. κληρονόμοι . If the right to that universal dominion which will belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are subject to a law, like that of Moses, what can it have to do either with the Promise originally given to Abraham, or with Faith to which that Promise was annexed? In that case Faith and Promise would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. But they cannot be cancelled; and therefore the inheritance must depend upon them and not upon Law. 15. This verse is parenthetic, proving that Law and Promise cannot exist and be in force side by side. They are too much opposed in their effects and operation. Law presents itself to St. Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. It increases the guilt of sin. So long as there is no commandment, the wrong act is done as it were accidentally and unconsciously; it cannot be called by the name of transgression. The direct breach of a known law is a far more heinous matter. On this disastrous effect of Law see 3:20, 5:13, 20, 7 ff. οὗδέ for οὗγάρ is decisively attested (א A B C &c.). παράβασις is the appropriate word for the direct violation of a code. It means to overstep a line clearly defined: peccare est transilire lineas Cicero, Parad. 3 (ap. Trench, Syn. p. 236). 16. ἐκπίστεως . In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. Paul contents himself with a few bold strokes, which he leaves it to the reader to fill in. It is usual to supply with ἐκπίστεως either ἡκληρονομίαἐστίν from 14 (Lips. Mey.) or ἡἐπαγγελίαἐστιν from 13 (Fri.), but as τὴνἐπαγγελίαν is defined just below it seems better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include both these. ‘ It was’ = ‘ The Divine plan was, took its start, from faith.’ The bold lines of God’ s plan, the Providential ordering of things, form the background, understood if not directly expressed, to the whole chapter. εἰςτὸεἶναι . Working round again to the same conclusion as before; the object of all these pre-arranged conditions was to do away with old restrictions, and to throw open the Messianic blessings to all who in any true sense could call Abraham ‘ father,’ i.e. to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. ABRAHAM’ S FAITH A TYPE OF THE ’ S 4:17-22. Abraham’ s Faith was remarkable both for its strength and for its object: the birth of Isaac in which Abraham believed might be described as a ‘ birth from the dead.’ 23-25. In this it is a type of the Christian’ s Faith, to which is annexed a like acceptance and which also has for its object a ‘ birth from the dead’ — the Death and Resurrection of Christ. 17In this light Abraham is regarded by God before whom he is represented as standing— that God who infuses life into the dead (as He was about to infuse it into Abraham’ s dead body), and who issues His summons (as He issued it then) to generations yet unborn. 18In such a God Abraham believed. Against all ordinary hope of becoming a father he yet had faith, grounded in hope, and enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wide-spread nations, to whom the Promise alluded when it said (Genesis 15:5) ‘ Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants be.’ 19Without showing weakness in his faith, he took full note of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about a hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed; he took full note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife; 20and yet with the promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate; his faith endowed him with the power which he seemed to lack; he gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him, 21having a firm conviction that What God had promised He was able also to perform. 22And for this reason that faith of his was credited to him as righteousness. 23Now when all this was recorded in Scripture, it was not Abraham alone who was in view 24but we too— the future generations of Christians, who will find a like acceptance, as we have a like faith. Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead: and we too believe on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone for our sins, and rose again to effect our justification (i.e. to put the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death, and at the same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement effectual). 17. πατέρα , κ .τ .λ . Exactly from LXX of Gen 17:5. The LXX tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the Heb., patrem frementis turbae, i.e. ingentis multitudinis populorum (Kautzsch, p. 25). κατέναντιοὗἐπίστευσεΘεοῦ : attraction for κατέναντιΘεοῦᾧἐπίστενσε : κατέναντι describing the posture in which Abraham is represented as holding colloquy with God (Genesis 17:1 ff.). ζωοποιοῦντος : ‘ maketh alive.’ St. Paul has in his mind the two acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this word, (1) the Birth of Isaac, (2) the Resurrection of Christ. On the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Greek, p. 5. καλοῦντος [τὰμὴὄνταὡςὄντα ]. There are four views: (i) καλ . = ‘ to name, speak of, or describe, things non-existent as if they existed’ (Va.); (ii) = ‘ to call into being, issue His creative fiat’ (most commentators); (iii) = ‘ to call, or summon,’ ‘ issue His commands to’ (Mey. Gif.); (iv) in the dogmatic sense = ‘ to call, or invite to life and salvation’ (Fri.). Of these (iv) may be put on one side as too remote from the context; and (ii) as Mey. rightly points out, seems to be negatived by ὡςὄντα . The choice remains between (i) and (iii). If the former seems the simplest, the latter is the more forcible rendering, and as such more in keeping with the imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. Paul. In favour of this view may also be quoted Apoc. Bar. xxi. O qui fecisti terram audi me … qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat, et obediunt tibi. For the use of καλεῖν see also the note on 9:7 below. 18. εἰςτὸγενέσθαι = ὥστεγενέσθαι : ‘ his faith enabled him to become the father,’ but with the underlying idea that his faith in this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered all these events. οὕτωςἔσται : = Genesis 15:5 (LXX). 19. μὴἀσθενήσας . Comp. Lft. in Journ. of Class. and Sac. Philol. iii. 106 n.: ‘ The New Testament use of μή with a participle … has a much wider range than in the earlier language. Yet this is no violation of principle, but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the subordinate event contained in the participial clause. It is viewed as an accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb, and is therefore negatived by the dependent negative μή and not by the absolute οὐ . Romans 4:19 … is a case in point whether we retain οὐ or omit it with Lachm. In the latter case the sense will be, “ he so considered his own body now dead, as not to be weak in the (?) faith.” ’ This is well expressed in RV. ‘ without being weakened,’ except that ‘ being weakened’ should be rather ‘ showing weakness’ or ‘ becoming weak.’ See also Burton, M. and T. § 145. κατενόησε א A B C some good cursives, some MSS. of Vulg. (including am.), Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. (which probably here preserves Origen’ s Greek), Chrys. and others; οὐκατενόησε D E F G K L P &c., some MSS. of Vulg. (including fuld, though it is more probable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that it was not recognized by Jerome), Syr.-Harcl., Orig.-lat. bis, Epiph. Ambrstr. al. Both readings give a good sense: κατενόησε , ‘ he did consider, and yet did not doubt’ ; οὐκατενόνσε , ‘ he did not consider, and therefore did not doubt.’ Both readings are also early: but the negative οὐκατενόησε is clearly of Western origin, and must probably be set down to Western laxity: the authorities which omit the negative are as a rule the most trustworthy. ὑπάρχων : ‘ being already about a hundred years old.’ May we not say that εἶναι denotes a present state simply as present, but that ὑπάρχειν denotes a present state as a product of past states, or at least a state in present time as related to past time (‘ vorhandensein, dasein, Lat. existere, adesse, praesto esse’ Schmidt)? See esp. T. S. Evans in Sp. Comm. on 1 Corinthians 7:26: ‘ the last word is difficult; it seems to mean sometimes “ to be originally,” “ to be substantially or fundamentally,” or, as in Demosthenes, “ to be stored in readiness.” An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp. ὕπαρξις , “ property” or “ substance.” The word however asks for further investigation.’ Comp. Schmidt, Lat. u. gr. Synonymik, § 74. 4. 20. οὐδιεκρίθη : ‘ did not hesitate’ (τουτέστινοὐδὲἐνεδοίασενοὐδὲἀμφέβαλε Chrys.). διακρίνειν act. = diiudicare, (i) to ‘ discriminate,’ or ‘ distinguish’ between two things (Matthew 16:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29, 1 Corinthians 11:31) or persons (Acts 15:9; 1 Corinthians 4:7); (ii) to ‘ arbitrate’ between two parties (1 Corinthians 6:5). διακρίνεσθαι mid. (and pass.) = (i) ‘ to get a decision,’ ‘ litigate,’ ‘ dispute,’ or ‘ contend’ (Acts 11:2; James 2:4; Jude 1:9); (ii) to ‘ be divided against one-self,’ ‘ waver,’ ‘ doubt.’ The other senses are all found in LXX (where the word occurs some thirty times), but this is wanting. It is however well established for N. T., where it appears as the proper opposite of πίστιςπιστεύω . So Matthew 21:21 ἐὰνἔχητεπίστιν , καὶμὴδιακριθῆτε : Mark 11:23 ὃςἂνεἴπῃ … καὶμὴδιακριθῇἐντῇκαρδίᾳαὐτοῦἀλλὰπιστεύῃ : Romans 14:23 ὁδὲδιακρινόμενος , ἐὰνφαγῇ , κατακέκριται , ὅτιοὐκἐκπίστεως : James 1:6 αἰτείτωδὲἐκπίστειμηδὲνδιακρινόμενος : also probably Jude 1:22. A like use is found in Christian writings of the second century and later: e.g. Protev. Jac. 11 ἀκούσασαδὲΜαριὰμδιεκρίθηἐνἑαυτῇλέγουσα , κ .τ .λ . (quoted by Mayor on James 1:6): Clem. Homil. i. 20 περὶτῆςπαραδοθείσηςσοιἀληθείαςδιακριθήσῃ : ii. 40 περὶτοῦμόνουκαὶἀγαθοῦΘεοῦδιακριθῆναι . It is remarkable that a use which there is no reason to connect specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian circles and the Christian line of tradition. It is not likely to be in the strict sense a Christian coinage, but appears to have had its beginning in near proximity to Christianity. A parallel case is that of the word δίψυχος (St. James, Clem. Rom., Herm., Didaché , &c.). The two words seem to belong to the same cycle of ideas. ἐνεδυναμώθητῇπίστει . τῇπίστει is here usually taken as dat. of respect, ‘ he was strengthened in his faith,’ i. e. ‘ his faith was strengthened, or confirmed.’ In favour of this would be μὴἀσθενήσαςτῇπίστει above; and the surrounding terms might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to make τῇπίστει instrumental or causal, like τῇἀπιστίᾳ to which it stands in immediate antithesis: ἐνεδ . τῇπίστ . would then = ‘ he was endowed with power by means of his faith’ . According to the Talmud, Abraham wurde in seiner Natur erneuert, eine neue Creatur (Bammidbar Rabba xi), um die Zeugung zu vollbringen (Weber, p. 256). And we can hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind: comp. Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12 πίστεικαὶαὐτὴΣάρραδύναμινεἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματοςἔλαβεκαὶπαρὰκαιρὸνἡλικίας … διὸκαὶἀφ ʼ ἑνὸςἐγεννήθησαν , καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου , καθὼςτὰἄστρατοῦοὐρανοῦτῷπλήθει . This sense is also distinctly recognized by Euthym.-Zig. . The other (common) interpretation is preferred by Chrys., from whom Euthym.-Zig. seems to get his ὁπίστινἐπιδεικνύμενοςδυνάμεωςδεῖταιπλείονος . The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. In the name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history of Revelation began. With him the people of revealed Religion came into existence: with him ‘ the Holy One began to work wonders’ (Beresh. Rabba liii, ap. Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 256). But it is of course a wholly new point when St. Paul compares the miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events— both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only death— but also in the faith of which they were the object. δοὺςδόξαν : a Hebraism: cf. Joshua 7:19; 1 Samuel 6:5; 1 Chronicles 16:28, &c. 21. πληροφορηθείς : πληροφορία = ‘ full assurance,’ ‘ firm conviction,’ 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Colossians 2:2; a word especially common amongst the Stoics. Hence πληροφορεῖσθαι , as used of persons, = ‘ to be fully assured or convinced,’ as here, ch. 14:5; Colossians 4:12. As used of things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 2 Timothy 4:5, 2 Timothy 4:17 and Luke 1:1, where some take it as = ‘ fully or satisfactorily proved,’ others as = ‘ accomplished’ (so Lat.-Vet. Vulg. RV. text Lft. On Revision, p. 142): see note ad loc. 23. δι ʼ αὐτὸνμόνον . Beresh. R. xl. 8 ‘ Thou findest that all that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his children’ (Wetstein, who is followed by Meyer, and Delitzsch ad loc.). Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. 1 Fratres nostri, de Ninevitis non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. 24. τοῖςπιστεύουσιν : ‘ to us who believe.’ St. Paul asserts that his readers are among the class of believers. Not ‘ if we believe,’ which would be πιστεύουσιν (sine artic.). 25. διά with acc. is primarily retrospective, = ‘ because of’ : but inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution, διά may be retrospective with reference to the idea, but prospective with reference to the execution. Which it is in any particular case must be determined by the context. Here διὰτὰπαραπτ . may be retrospective, = ‘ because of our trespasses’ (which made the death of Christ necessary); or it may be prospective, as Gif. ‘ because of our trespasses,’ i.e. ‘ in order to atone for them.’ In any case διὰτὴνδικαίωσιν is prospective, ‘ with a view to our justification,’ ‘ because of our justification’ conceived as a motive, i. e. to bring it about. See Dr. Gifford`s two excellent notes pp. 108, 109. The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. It is at once the great source of the Christian’ s faith, the assurance of the special character of the object of that faith, the proof that the Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice, and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. See also the notes on ch. 6:5-8. The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of St. Paul The Resurrection of Christ fills an immense place in the teaching of St. Paul, and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis and care with which he states the evidence for it (1 Corinthians 15:1-11). (i) The Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity of Christ (Acts 17:31; Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:15). (ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also the most decisive proof of the atoning value of His Death. But for the Resurrection, there would have been nothing to show— at least no clear and convincing sign to show— that He who died upon the Cross was more than man. But if the Victim of the Cross had been man and nothing more, there would have been no sufficient reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy; the faith of Christians would be ‘ vain,’ they would be ‘ yet in their sins’ (1 Corinthians 15:17). (iii) In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of the Death of Christ. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of Calvary would have been incomplete. The Resurrection placed upon that Sacrifice the stamp of God’ s approval; it showed that the Sacrifice was accepted, and that the cloud of Divine Wrath— the ὀργή so long suspended and threatening to break (Romans 3:25, Romans 3:26)— had passed away. This is the thought which lies at the bottom of Rom 6:7-10. (iv) The Resurrection of Christ is the strongest guarantee for the resurrection of the Christian (1 Corinthians 15:20-23; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Romans 8:11; Colossians 1:18). (v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects: it is not only physical, a future rising again to physical life, but it is also moral and spiritual, a present rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. In virtue of his union with Christ, the close and intimate relation of his spirit with Christ’ s, the Christian is called upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. And this moral and spiritual sense is the only sense in which he can repeat them. We shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. 6:1-11. A recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. Schä der, Die Bedeutung des lebendigen Christus fü r die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus, Gü tersloh, 1893) has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Herr Schä der (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Kö nigsberg) insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by Christ; that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ’ s Death but His Person (ἐνᾧἓχομεντὴνἀπολύτρωσιν Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14). It is as a Person that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his stead (Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21). The Resurrection is proof that this ‘ Wrath’ is at an end. And therefore in certain salient passages (Romans 4:25; Romans 6:9, Romans 6:10; Romans 8:34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as the cause of justification. The treatise is well deserving of study. It may be right also to mention, without wholly endorsing, Dr. Hort’ s significant aphorism: ‘ Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemption, and redemption one aspect of resurrection, and resurrection one aspect of life’ (Hulsean Lectures, p. 210). This can more readily be accepted if ‘ one aspect’ in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning, which is especially needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions, that all definitions of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value. They are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in their entirety. If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them running up into large and broad laws of His working. We desire to make this reserve in regard to our own attempts to define. Without it exact exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism. K Cod. Mosquensis L Cod. Angelicus P Cod. Porphyrianus &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus A Cod. Alexandrinus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus D Cod. Claromontanus E Cod. Sangermanensis F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus Vulg. Vulgate. Boh. Bohairic. Arm. Armenian. Aeth. Ethiopic. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen B Cod. Vaticanus WH. Westcott and Hort. RV. Revised Version. al. alii, alibi. Tisch. Tischendorf. Gif. Gifford. Orig. Origen. Chrys. Chrysostom. Phot. Photius. Lips. Lipsius. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c ש ׂ א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector ca Lft. Lightfoot. * Besides what is said above, see Introduction § 8. It is a satisfaction to find that the view here taken is substantially that of Dr. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 148, ‘ it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or misunderstanding of St. Paul’ s teaching on the part of others gave rise to St. James’ s carefully guarded language.’ * There is a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of a verse and of a sentence. St. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject, suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone before. Trench, Trench on Synonyms. Mey. Meyer. Fri. Fritzsche (C. F. A.). Va. Vaughan. Pesh. Peshitto. Harcl. Harclean. Epiph. Epiphanius. Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster. OF 5:1-11. The state which thus lies before the Christian should have consequences both near and remote. The nearer consequences, peace with God and hope which gives courage under persecution (vv. 1-4): the remoter consequence, an assurance, derived from the proof of God’ s love, of our final salvation and glory. The first step (our present acceptance with God) is difficult; the second step (our ultimate salvation) follows naturally from the first (vv. 5-11). 1We Christians then ought to enter upon our privileges. By that strong and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as Christ’ s we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God, and it becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. 2He it is whose Death and Resurrection, the object of our faith (4:25), have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. Within the sheltered circle of that favour we stand as Christians, in no merely passive attitude, but we exult in the hope of one day participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. 3Yes, and this exultation of ours, so far from being shaken by persecutions is actually founded upon them. For persecution only generates fortitude, or resolute endurance under trials: 4and then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran; and that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally sprang. 5More: our hope is one that cannot prove illusory; because (and here a new factor is introduced, for the first time in this connexion) the Holy Spirit, through whom God is brought into personal contact with man— that Holy Spirit which we received when we became Christians, floods our hearts with the consciousness of the Love of God for us. 6Think what are the facts to which we can appeal. When we were utterly weak and prostrate, at the moment of our deepest despair, Christ died for us— not as righteous men, but as godless sinners! 7What a proof of love was there! For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find one willing to die; though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable qualities of goodness) one here and there may be brave enough to face death. 8But God presses home the proof of His unmerited Love towards us, in that, sinners as we still were, Christ died for us. 9Here then is an a fortiori argument. The fact that we have been actually declared ‘ righteous’ by coming within the influence of Christ’ s sacrificial Blood— this fact which implies a stupendous change in the whole of our relations to God is a sure pledge of what is far easier— our escape from His final judgement. 10For there is a double contrast. If God intervened for us while we were His enemies, much more now that we are reconciled to Him. If the first intervention cost the Death of His Son, the second costs nothing, but follows naturally from the share which we have in His Life. 11And not only do we look for this final salvation, but we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that one great step of our reconciliation. 1-11. Every line of this passage breathes St. Paul’ s personal experience, and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are the grounds of a Christian’ s confidence. He believes that the ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to God. That change he attributes ultimately, it is clear throughout this context, not merely in general terms to Christ (διά 5:1, 2, 11 bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (παρεδόθη 4:25; ἀπέθανε 5:6, 8; ἐντῷαἵματι 5:9; διὰτοῦθανάτου 5:10). He conceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding (ἐντῷαἵματι : cf. 3:25 and the passages referred to in the Note on the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). The Blood of that Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian, and forms a sort of hallowed enclosure, a place of sanctuary, into which he enters. Within this he is safe, and from its shelter he looks out exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him; they may strengthen his firmness of purpose, but cannot shake it. 1. The word δικαίωσιν at the end of the last chapter recalls St. Paul to his main topic. After expounding the nature of his new method of obtaining righteousness in 3:21-26, he had begun to draw some of the consequences from this (the deathblow to Jewish pride, and the equality of Jew and Gentile) in 3:27-31. This suggested the digression in ch. 4, to prove that notwithstanding there was no breach of God’ s purposes as declared in the O. T. (strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. T.), but rather the contrary. Now he goes back to ‘ consequences’ and traces them out for the individual Christian. He explains why it is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully: he has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart, and a confident hope of future glory. ἔχωμεν . The evidence for this reading stands thus: ἔχωμεν א A B C D E K L, cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. repeatedly Chrys. Ambrstr. and others: ἔχομεν correctors of א B, F G (duplicate MSS. it will be remembered) in the Greek though not in the Latin, P and many cursives, Did. Epiph. Cyr.-Alex. in three places out of four. Clearly overwhelming authority for ἕχωμεν . It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of place: ‘ inference not exhortation is the Apostle’ s purpose’ (Scrivener, Introd. ii. 380 Exo_4); (ii) that ο and ω are frequently interchanged in the MSS., as in this very word Galatians 6:10 (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:49); (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. from which the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have descended. But these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the weight of direct testimony. (i) St. Paul is apt to pass from argument to exhortation; so in the near context 6 (1), 12, (15); 12; (ii) in ἒχωμεν inference and exhortation are really combined: it is a sort of light exhortation, ‘ we should have’ (T. S. Evans). As to the meaning of ἔχωμεν it should be observed that it does not = ‘ make peace,’ ‘ get’ or ‘ obtain peace’ , but rather ‘ keep’ or ‘ enjoy peace’ (οὐγάρἐστινἴσονμὴοὖσανεἰρήνηνλαβεῖνκαὶδοθεῖσανκατασχεῖν Chrys.; cf. Acts 9:31 ἡμὲνοὖνἐκκλησία̣̣̣εἶχενεἰρήνην , ‘ continued in a state of peace’ ). The aor. part. δικαιωθέντες marks the initial moment of the state εἰρήνηνἔχωμεν . The declaration of ‘ not guilty,’ which the sinner comes under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity, at once does away with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God, and substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. This declaration of ‘ not guilty’ and the peace which follows upon it are not due to himself, but are διὰτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ : how is explained more fully in 3:25; also in vv. 9, 10 below. Dr. J. Agar Beet (Comm. ad loc.) discusses the exact shade of meaning conveyed by the aor. part. δικαιωθέντες in relation to εἰρήνηνἔχωμεν . He contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state in question as the means of entering upon it. No doubt this is perfectly tenable on the score of grammar; and it is also true that ‘ justification necessarily involves peace with God.’ But the argument goes too much upon the assumption that εἰρ . ἔχ . = ‘ obtain peace,’ which we have seen to be erroneous. The sense is exactly that of εἶχενεἰρήνην in the passage quoted from the Acts, and δικαιωθ ., as we have said, marks the initial moment in the state. 2. τὴνπροσαγωγήν . Two stages only are described in vv. 1, 2 though different language is used about them: δικαιωθέντες = ἡπροσαγωγή , εἰρήνη = χάρις ; the καύχησις is a characteristic of the state of χάρις , at the same time that it points forward to a future state of δόξα . The phrase ἡπροσαγ ., ‘ our introduction,’ is a connecting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12): the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of a monarch. The rendering ‘ access’ is inadequate, as it leaves out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but need an ‘ introducer’ — Christ. ἐσχήκαμεν : not ‘ we have had’ (Va.), but ‘ we have got or obtained,’ aor. and perf. in one. ‘ Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we render, “ through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into this grace wherein we stand.” This rendering will bring to view two causes of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace; one cause objective, Christ: the other subjective, faith; Christ the door, faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit’ (T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, i. 169). τῇπίστει om. B D E F G, Lat. Vet., Orig.-lat. bis. The weight of this evidence depends on the value which we assign to B. All the other evidence is Western; and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element; so that the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corroboration of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the evidence = β + δ , or δ only?). There is the further point that omissions in the Western text deserve more attention than additions. Either reading can be easily enough accounted for, as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The balance is sufficiently represented by placing τῇπίστει in brackets as Treg. WH. RV. marg. (Weiss omits). εἰςτὴνχάρινταύτην : the ‘ state of grace’ or condition of those who are objects of the Divine favour, conceived of as a space fenced in (Mey. Va. &c.) into which the Christian enters: cf. Galatians 5:4; 1 Peter 5:12 (Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. χάρις 3. a). ἑστήκαμεν : ‘ stand fast or firm’ (see Va. and Grm.-Thay. s. v. ἵστημι ii. 2. d). ἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι : as in 4:18. τῆςδόξης . See on 3:23. It is the Glory of the Divine Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here, but) in full measure when he enters into that Presence; man’ s whole being will be transfigured by it. Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of Justification? It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the Christian Society as a collective whole, and not the individual as such. This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. (1) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. T. The great sacrifices of the O. T. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance for ‘ the congregation.’ So in regard to the Passover it is laid down expressly that no alien is to eat of it, but all the congregation of Israel are to keep it (Exodus 12:43 ff., Exodus 12:47). And still more distinctly as to the ritual of the Day of Atonement: the high priest is to ‘ make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins’ ; he is to lay both his hands on the head of the goat, and ‘ confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins’ (Leviticus 16:16, Leviticus 16:21, also 33 f.). This argument gains in force from the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event, accomplished once for all. It is natural to think of it as having also a single and permanent object. (2) The second argument is derived from the exegesis of the N. T. generally (most clearly perhaps in Acts 20:28 τὴνἐκκλησίαντοῦΘεοῦ [v. l. Κυρίου ], ἣνπεριεποιήσατοδιὰτοῦαἵματοςτοῦἰδίου : but also in 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; 1 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:5 f.; Revelation 5:9 f.), and more particularly in the Epistles of St. Paul. The society is, it is true, most clearly indicated in the later Epp.; e. g. Titus 2:14 σωτῆροςἡμῶνἸ . Χ ., ὃςἔδωκενἑαυτὸνὑπερἡμῶν , ἵναλυτρώσηταιἡμᾶς̣̣̣καὶκαθαρίσῃἑαυτῷλαὸνπεριούσιον : Ephesians 5:25 f. ὁΧριστὸςἡγάπησετὴνἐκκλησίαν , καὶἑαυτὸνπαρέδωκενὑπὲραὐτῆς · ἵνααὐτὴνἁγιάσῃκαθαρίσαςκ .τ .λ . (cf. also Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Colossians 1:14). But Ritschl also claims the support of the earlier Epp.: e. g. Romans 8:32 ὑπὲρἡμῶνπάντωνπαρέδωκεναὐτόν : 3:22 δικαιοσύνηδὲθεοῦ̣̣̣εἰςπάνταςτοὺςπιστεύοντας : and the repeated ἡμεῖς in the contexts of three passages (Comp. Rechtfert. u. Versö hn. ii 216 f., 160). In reply the critics of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly individualistic cast of such expressions as Romans 3:26 δικαιοῦντατὸνἐκπίστεωςἸησοῦ : 4:5 ἐπὶτὸνδικαιοῦντατὸνἀσεβῆ , with the context: 10:4 εἰςδικαιοσύνηνπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι (Schä der, op. cit. p. 29 n.; cf. also Gloë l, Der Heilige Geist, p. 102 n.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 82 b, referred to by Schä der). It is undoubtedly true that St. Paul does use language which points to the direct justification of the individual believer. This perhaps comes out most clearly in Rom_4, where the personal faith and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of the Christian’ s. But need we on that account throw over the other passages above quoted, which seem to be quite as unambiguous? That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. We may if we like, as St. Paul very often does, leave out of sight the intervening steps; and it is perhaps the more natural that he should do so, as the Church is in this connexion an ideal entity. But this entity is prior in thought to the members who compose it; and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as consummated once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages, it is no less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which alone embraces past, present, and future, and alone binds all the scattered particulars into unity. We must remember also that in the age and to the thought of St. Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within the range of justification is inseparably connected with its ratification in baptism. But the significance of baptism lies in the fact that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society, and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities of that society. St. Paul is about (in the next chapter) to lay stress on this point. He there, as well as elsewhere, describes the relation of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with Christ as established by the same act which makes him also member of the society. And therefore when at the beginning of the present chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into the state of grace in metaphors which present that state under the figure of a fenced-off enclosure, it is natural to identify the area within which grace and justification operate with the area of the society, in other words with the Church. The Church however in this connexion can have no narrower definition than ‘ all baptized persons.’ And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an inseparable adjunct to faith; so that if through any exceptional circumstances the two were separated, the greater might be taken to include the less. The Christian theologian has to do with what is normal; the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts. It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of any hard and fast Scholasticism, but only in accordance with the free and natural tendencies of the Apostle’ s thought, that we speak of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. St. Paul himself, as we have seen, often drops the intervening link, especially in the earlier Epistles. But in proportion as his maturer insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer what the ‘ congregation’ did for the individual Israelites under the older dispensation. The Christian Sacrifice with its effects, like the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement by which it is typified, reach the individual through the community. 3-5. The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand out distinctly in these verses. We are fortunately able to compare the Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (non solum … confundit) and the European text of Cod. Clarom. with that of Hilary (tribulatio … confundit). The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m), which represents the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian (Classical Review, iv. 416 f.). Cyprian. Cod. Clarom. Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur in pressuris, scientes quoniam pressura tolerantiam operatur, tolerantia autem probationem, probatio autem spem; spes autem non confundit, quia dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis. verum etiam exultantes Tert.; certi quod Tert.; perficiat Tert. (ed. Vindob.); tol. vero Tert.; spes vero Tert. Non solum autem, sed et gloriamur in tribulationibus, scientes quod tribulatio patientiam operatur, patientia autem probationem, probatio autem spem; spes autem non confundit, quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis. perficit Hil.; prob. vero m Hil.; spes vero Hil. (Cod. Clarom. = m). Here, as elsewhere in Epp. Paul., there is a considerable amount of matter common to all forms of the Version, enough to give colour to the supposition that a single translation lies at their root. But the salient expressions are changed; and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian, as Hilary with the European texts. The renderings tolerantia and pressura are verified for Tertullian elsewhere (tolerantia Luke 21:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:4: pressura Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 1 Corinthians 7:28; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4; Colossians 1:24; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 2:22; Revelation 7:14), as also dilectio (to which the quotation does not extend in this passage, but which is found in Luke 11:42; John 13:35; Romans 8:35, Romans 8:39; 1 Corinthians 13:1 ff., &c.). We note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit (perficiat), though in another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio patientiam operatur. Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 3. οὐμόνονδέ : in this elliptical form characteristic of St. Paul and esp. of this group of Epistles (cf. 5:11; 8:23; 9:10; 2 Corinthians 8:19). καυχώμενοι B C, Orig. bis and others: a good group, but open to suspicion of conforming to ver. 11 (q. v.); we have also found a similar group, on the whole inferior, in 3:28. If καυχώμενοι were right it would be another example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive structure which is doubtless due, as Va. suggests, to the habit of dictating to an amanuensis. Note the contrast between the Jewish καύχησις which ‘ is excluded’ (3:27) and this Christian καύχησις . The one rests on supposed human privileges and merit; the other draws all its force from the assurance of Divine love. The Jewish writers know of another καύχησις (besides the empty boasting which St. Paul reprehends), but it is reserved for the blest in Paradise: 4 Ezr. 7:98 [Bensly = vi. 72 O. F. Fritzsche] exultabunt cum fiducia et … confidebunt non confusi, et gaudebunt non reverentes. ἐνταῖςθλίψεσι . The θλίψεις are the physical hardships and sufferings that St. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the Christian; cf. Romans 8:35 ff.; 1 Corinthians 4:11-13; 1 Corinthians 7:26-32; 1 Corinthians 15:30-32; 2 Corinthians 1:3-10; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. Such passages give us glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. Paul’ s Epistles. He is so absorbed in his ‘ Gospel’ that this makes very little impression upon him. Indeed, as this chapter shows, the overwhelming sense of God’ s mercy and love fills him with such exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. The same feeling comes out in the ὑπερνικῶμεν of 8:37: the whole passage is parallel. ὑπομονήν : not merely a passive quality but a ‘ masculine constancy in holding out under trials’ (Waite on 2 Corinthians 6:4), ‘ fortitude.’ See on 2:7 above. 4. δοκιμή : the character which results from the process of trial, the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit; cf. James 1:12, &c. The exact order of ὑπομονή and δοκιμή must not be pressed too far: in St. James 1:3 τὸδοκίμιοντῆςπίστεως produces ὑπομονή . If St. James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. The conception is that of 2 Timothy 2:3 (in the revised as well as the received text). ἡδὲδοκιμὴἐλπίδα . It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience that the hope which is in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened by the hardening and bracing of character which come from actual conflict. Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming sense of God’ s love, brought home through the Death of Christ; and to this the Apostle returns. 5. οὐκαταισχύνει : ‘ does not disappoint,’ ‘ does not prove illusory.’ The text Isaiah 28:16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (‘ Behold, I lay in Zion,’ &c.), and the assurance by which this was followed was confirmed to them by their own experience: the verse is directly quoted Romans 9:33 q. v.; 1 Peter 2:6. ἡἀγάπητοῦΘεοῦ : certainly ‘ the love of God for us,’ not ‘ our love for God’ (Theodrt. Aug. and some moderns): ἀγάπη thus comes to mean, ‘ our sense of God’ s love,’ just as εἰρήνη = ‘ our sense of peace with God.’ ἐκκέχυται . The idea of spiritual refreshment and encouragement is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of watering. St. Paul seems to have had in his mind Isaiah 44:3 ‘ I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground: I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed,’ &c. διὰΠνεύματοςἉγίου : without the art., for the Spirit as imparted, St. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit, dating from the time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian, i.e. from his baptism. 6. ἔτιγάρ . There is here a difficult, but not really very important, variety of reading, the evidence for which may be thus summarized:— ἔτιγάρ at the beginning of the verse with ἔτι also after ἀσθενῶν , the mass of MSS. ἔτι at the beginning of the verse only, some inferior MSS. (later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). εἰςτίγάρ (possibly representing ἵνατίγάρ , ut quid enim), the Western text (Latin authorities). εἰγάρ few authorities, partly Latin. εἴγε B. It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account for all the variants. That indeed which has the best authority, the double ἔτι , does not seem to be tenable, unless we suppose an accidental repetition of the word either by St. Paul or his amanuensis. It would not be difficult to get ἔτιγάρ from ἴνατίγάρ , or vice versa, through the doubling or dropping of ΙΝ from the preceding word ΗΜΙΝ ; nor would it be difficult to explain ἔτιγάρ from εἰγάρ , or vice versa. We might then work our way back to an alternative εἰγάρ or εἴγε , which might be confused with each other through the use of an abbreviation. Fuller details are given below. We think on the whole that it is not improbable that here, as in 4:1, B has preserved the original reading εἴγε . For the meaning of εἴγε (‘ so surely as’ Va.) see T. S. Evans in Exp. 1882, 1:176 f.; and the note on 3:30 above. In more detail the evidence stands thus: ἔτιγάρ here with ἔτι also after ἀσθενῶν א A C D* al.: ἔτι here only Dc E K L P &c.: εἰςτίγάρ Db F G: ut quid enim Lat. Vet. Vulg., Iren.-lat. Faustin: εἰγάρ 104 Greg. ( = h Scriv.), fuld, Isid.-Pelus. Aug. bis: εἰγὰρ̣̣̣ἔτι Boh. (‘ For if, we being still weak,’ &c.): εἰδέ Pesh.: εἴγε B. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips., and not quite correctly even by Gif., through overlooking the commas in Tisch. The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH.] It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly supported is ἔτιγάρ , with double ἔτι , which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus calami between St. Paul and his amanuensis. (2) The Western reading is εἰςτίγάρ , which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original ἵνατίγάρ (Gif., from ut quid enim of Iren.-lat. &c.): this is no doubt a very early reading. (3) Another sporadic reading is εἰγάρ . (4) B alone gives εἴγε . So far as sense goes this is the best, and there are not a few cases in N. T. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. 4:1 above). But the problem is, how to account for the other readings? It would not be difficult palaeographically from εἰγάρ to get ἔτιγάρ by dittography of ι , or from this again to get εἰςτίγάρ through dittography of ε and confusion with χ ; or we might take the alternative ingeniously suggested by Gif., of supposing that the original reading was ἵνατίγάρ , of which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous ἡμῖν . There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for the origin either of ἔτιγάρ or of the group of Western readings; and the primitive variants would be reduced to the two, ειγαρ and ειγε . Dr. Hort proposed to account for these by a conjectural ειπερ , which would be a conceivable root for all the variations— partly through paraphrase and partly through errors of transcription. We might however escape the necessity of resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between γε and the abbreviation γβ . [For this form see T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek MSS. (Oxford, 1889), p. 9 and pl. iii; Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Abkü rzungen d. griech. Handschriften (Leipzig, 1880), p. 91 f. taf. 9. We believe that the oldest extant example is in the Fragmentum Mathematicum Bobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach, Script. Graec. Specim. tab. 8), where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. But we know that shorthand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. Eus. H. E. VI. xxiii. 2), and it may have been used by Tertius himself.] Where we have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible to speak very confidently; but we suspect that εἴγε , as it makes the best sense, may also be the original reading. ἀσθενῶν : ‘ incapable’ of working out any righteousness for ourselves. κατὰκαιρόν . St. Paul is strongly impressed with the fitness of the moment in the world’ s history which Christ chose for His intervention in it. This idea is a striking link of connexion between the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles; compare on the one hand Galatians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Romans 3:26; and on the other hand Ephesians 1:10; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 1:3. 7. μόλιςγάρ . The γάρ explains how this dying for sinners is a conspicuous proof of love. A few may face death for a good man, still fewer for a righteous man, but in the case of Christ there is more even than this; He died for declared enemies of God. For μόλις the first hand of א and Orig. read μόγις , which has more attestation in Luke 9:39. The two words were easily confused both in sense and in writing. ὑπὲρδικαίου . There is clearly in this passage a contrast between ὑπὲρδικαίου and ὑπὲρτοῦἀγαθοῦ . They are not expressions which may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey.-W. Lips. &c.), but it is implied that it is an easier thing to die for the ἀγαθός than for the δίκαιος . Similarly the Gnostics drew a distinction between the God of the O. T. and the God of the N. T., calling the one δίκαιος and the other ἀγαθός (Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. 1; comp. other passages and authorities quoted by Gif. p. 123). The δίκαιος keeps to the ‘ letter of his bond’ ; about the ἀγαθός there is something warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion. In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus, not to speak of others, it should not be argued as it is by Weiss and Lips. (who make τοῦἀγαθοῦ neut.) and even by Mey. and Dr. T. K. Abbott (Essays, p. 75) that there is no substantial difference between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός . We ourselves often use ‘ righteous’ and ‘ good’ as equivalent without effacing the distinction between them when there is any reason to emphasize it. The stumbling-block of the art. before ἀγαθοῦ and not before δικαίου need not stand in the way. This is sufficiently explained by Gif., who points out that the clause beginning with μόλις is virtually negative, so that δικαίου is indefinite and does not need the art., while the affirmative clause implies a definite instance which the art. indicates. We go therefore with most English and American scholars (Stuart, Hodge, Gif. Va. Lid.) against some leading Continental names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural sense of the passage. 8. συνίστησι : see on 3:5. τὴνἑαυτοῦἀγάπην : ‘ His own love,’ emphatic, prompted from within not from without. Observe that the death of Christ is here referred to the will of the Father, which lies behind the whole of what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the ‘ scheme of redemption.’ Gif. excellently remarks that the ‘ proof of God’ s love towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion to the closeness of the union between God and Christ.’ It is the death of One who is nothing less than ‘ the Son.’ τὴνἑαυτοῦἀγάπηνεἰςἡμᾶςὁΘεός א A C K P &c.: ὁΘεὸςεἰςἡμᾶς D E F G L: om. ὁΘεός B. There is no substantial difference of meaning, as εἰςἡμᾶς in any case goes with συνίστησι , not with ἀγάπην . ὑπὲρἡμῶνἀπέθανε . St. Paul uses emphatic language, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, to show that this doctrine was not confined to himself but was a common property of Christians. 9. St. Paul here separates between ‘ justification,’ the pronouncing ‘ not guilty’ of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the wrath to come. He also clearly connects the act of justification with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the author of Heb 9:22 χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίαςοὐγίνεταιἄφεσις , see p. 92 above. No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next— the one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from Christ. δι ʼ αὐτοῦ : explained by the next verse ἐντῇζωῇαὐτοῦ . That which saves the Christian from final judgement is his union with the living Christ. 10. κατηλλάγημεν . The natural prima facie view is that the reconciliation is mutual; and this view appears to verify itself on examination: see below. ἐντῇζωῇαὐτοῦ . For the full meaning of this see the notes on ch. 6:8-11; 8:10, 11. 11. καυχώμενοι (א B C D, &c.) is decisively attested for καυχώμεθα , which was doubtless due to an attempt to improve the construction. The part. is loosely attached to what precedes, and must be taken as in sense equivalent to καυχώμεθα . In any case it is present and not future . We may compare a similar loose attachment of δικαιούμενοι in ch. 3:24. The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement The καταλλαγή described in these verses is the same as the εἰρήνη of ver. 1; and the question necessarily meets us, What does this εἰρήνη or καταλλαγή mean? Is it a change in the attitude of man to God or in that of God to man? Many high authorities contend that it is only a change in the attitude of man to God. Thus Lightfoot on Colossians 1:21: ‘ ἐχθρούς , “ hostile to God,” as the consequence of ὰπηλλοτριωμένους not “ hateful to God,” as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ἐχθρούς is required by the context, which (as commonly in the N. T.) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the sinner … It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.’ Similarly Westcott on 1 John 2:2 (p. 85): ‘ Such phrases as “ propitiating God” and “ God being reconciled” are foreign to the language of the N. T. Man is reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:18 ff.; Romans 5:10 f.). There is “ propitiation” in the matter of sin or of the sinner. The love of God is the same throughout; but He “ cannot” in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent and sinful: and more than this, He “ cannot” treat sin as if it were not sin. This being so, the ἱλασμός , when it is applied to the sinner, so to speak, neutralizes the sin.’ [A difficult and it may be thought hardly tenable distinction. The relation of God to sin is not merely passive but active; and the term ίλασμός is properly used in reference to a personal agent. Some one is ‘ propitiated’ : and who can this be, but God?] The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of Ritschl (Recht. u. Vers. ii. 230 ff.). No doubt there are passages where ἐχθρός denotes the hostility and καταλλαγή the reconciliation of man to God; but taking the language of Scripture as a whole, it does not seem that it can be explained in this way. (1) In the immediate context we have τὴνκαταλλαγὴνἐλάβομεν , implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of God, and is not directly due to any act of his own. We may compare the familiar χάριςκαὶεἰρήνη , to which is usually added ἀπὸΘεοῦ in the greetings of the Epistles. (2) In Romans 11:28 ἐχθροί is opposed to ἀγαπητοί , where ἀγαπητοί must be passive , so that it is hardly possible that ἐχθροί can be entirely active, though it may be partly so: it seems to correspond to our word ‘ hostile.’ (3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as ἱλαστήριον (Romans 3:25), ἱλασμός (1 John 2:2) from the idea of propitiating a person. (4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed against sinners, not merely at the end of all things, but also at this present time (Romans 1:18, &c.). When that Anger ceases to be so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be compelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that they are not on one side only, but are mutual. At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our imperfect way of speaking: κατὰἄνθρωπονλέγω must be written large over all such language. We are obliged to use anthropomorphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation on the part of God as well as of man; and yet in some way which we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is ‘ no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST 5:12-14. What a contrast does this last description suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work of Christ! There is indeed parallelism as well as contrast. For it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and life, so Adam’ s Fall brought sin and death. If death prevailed throughout the pre-Mosaic period, that could not be due solely to the act of those who died. Death is the punishment of sin; but they had not sinned against law as Adam had. The true cause then was not their own sin, but Adam’ s; whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond itself, like the redeeming act of Christ. 12The description just given of the Work of Christ, first justifying and reconciling the sinner, and then holding out to him the hope of final salvation, brings out forcibly the contrast between the two great Representatives of Humanity— Adam and Christ. The act by which Adam fell, like the act of Christ, had a far-reaching effect upon mankind. Through his Fall, Sin, as an active principle, first gained an entrance among the human race; and Sin brought with it the doom of (physical) Death. So that, through Adam’ s Fall, death pervaded the whole body of his descendants, because they one and all fell into sin, and died as he had died. 13When I say ‘ they sinned’ I must insert a word of qualification. In the strict sense of full responsibility, they could not sin: for that attaches only to sin against law, and they had as yet no law to sin against. 14Yet they suffered the full penalty of sin. All through the long period which intervened between Adam and the Mosaic legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even though those who died had not sinned, as Adam had, in violation of an express command. This proved that something deeper was at work: and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam’ s sin. It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam a type of the coming Messiah. 12. διὰτοῦτο : points to the logical connexion with what precedes. It has been argued, at somewhat disproportionate length, whether this refers to ver. 11 only (Fricke, De Mente dogmatica loci Paulini ad Romans 5:12 sq., Lipsiae, 1880, Mey., Philippi, Beet), or to vv. 9-11 (Fri.), or to vv. 1-11 (Rothe, Hofmann), or to the whole discussion from 1:17 onwards (Beng., Schott, Reiche, Rü ckert). We cannot lay down so precisely how much was consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. But as the leading idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ, it seems natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of that work, i. e. as far as vv. 1-11. That being so, we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 11 that St. Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one case with that of life in the other. Fricke, however, is right in saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death or sin. The origin of both is assumed, not propounded as anything new. This is important for the understanding of the bearings of the passage. All turns on this, that the effects of Adam’ s Fall were transmitted to his descendants; but St. Paul nowhere says how they were transmitted; nor does he even define in precise terms what is transmitted. He seems, however, to mean (1) the liability to sin, (2) the liability to die as the punishment of sin. ὥσπερ . The structure of the paragraph introduced by this word (to the end of ver. 14) is broken in a manner very characteristic of St. Paul. He begins the sentence as if he intended it to run: ὥσπερδι ʼ ἑνὸςἀνθρώπουἡἁμαρτίαεἰςτὸνκόσμονεἰσῆλθε , καὶδιὰτῆςἁμαρτίαςὁθάνατος … οὕτωκαὶδι ʼ ἑνὸςἀνθρώπουἡδικαιοσύνηεἰσῆλθε , καὶδιὰτῆςδικαιοσύνηςἡζωή . But the words διὰτῆςἁμαρτίαςὁθάνατος bring up the subject which St. Paul is intending to raise, viz. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam: he goes off upon this, and when he has discussed it sufficiently for his purpose, he does not return to the form of sentence which he had originally planned, but he attaches the clause comparing Christ to Adam by a relative to the end of his digression: and so what should have been the main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely subordinate. It is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and intensity of thought; but the meaning is quite clear. Compare the construction of 2:16; 3:8, 26. ἡἁμαρτία : Sin, as so often, is personified: it is a malignant force let loose among mankind: see the fuller note at the end of the chapter. εἰςτὸνκόσμονεἰσῆλθε : a phrase which, though it reminds us specially of St. John (John 1:9, John 1:10; John 3:17, John 3:19; John 6:14; John 9:5, John 9:39; John 10:36, &c.), is not peculiar to him (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 10:5). St. John and the author of Heb. apply it to the personal incarnation of the Logos; here it is applied to the impersonal self-diffusion of evil. ὁθάνατος . Some have taken this to mean ‘ eternal death,’ chiefly on the ground of vv. 17, 21, where it seems to be opposed to ‘ eternal life.’ Oltr. is the most strenuous supporter of this view. But it is far simpler and better to take it of ‘ physical death’ : because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 14; (2) it is the sense of Gen 2:17; Genesis 3:19; to which St. Paul is evidently alluding. It seems probable that even in vv. 17, 21, the idea is in the first instance physical. But St. Paul does not draw the marked distinction that we do between this life and the life to come. The mention of death in any sense is enough to suggest the contrast of life in all its senses. The Apostle’ s argument is that the gift of life and the benefits wrought by Christ are altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam’ s sin; ὑπερεπερίσσευσενἡχάρις is the keynote of the passage. It is not necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly correspond. In each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour of the Christian. The Western text (D E F G, &c.) omits this word altogether. Aug. makes the subject of the vb. not death but sin: he makes it a charge against the Pelagians that they understood in the second place ὁθάνατος . διῆλθεν : contains the force of distribution; ‘ made its way to each individual member of the race’ : καθάπερτιςκλῆροςπατρὸςδιαβὰςἐπὶτοὺςἐγγόνους , Euthym.-Zig. ἐφ ʼ ᾧ Though this expression has been much fought over there can now be little doubt that the true rendering is ‘ because’ (1) Orig. followed by the Latin commentators Aug. and Amdrstr. took the rel. as masc. with antecedent Ἀδάμ : ‘ in whom,’ i. e. ‘ in Adam.’ But in that case (i) ἐπί would not be the right preposition; (ii) ᾧ would be too far removed from its antecedent. (2) Some Greeks quoted by Photius also took the rel. as masc. with antecedent θάνατος : ‘ in which,’ i. e. ‘ in death,’ which is even more impossible. (3) Some moderns, taking ᾧ as neut. and the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction, have tried to get out of it other meanings than ‘ because.’ So (i) ‘ in like manner as’ , Rothe, De Wette; (ii) ‘ in proportion as,’ ‘ in so far as’ , Ewald, Tholuck (ed. 1856) and others. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. (4) ᾧ is rightly taken as neut., and the phrase ἐφ ʼ ᾧ as conj. = ‘ because’ (‘ for that’ AV. and RV.) by Theodrt; Phot. Euthym.-Zig. and the mass of modern commentators. This is in agreement with Greek usage and is alone satisfactory. ἐφ ʼ ᾧ in classical writers more often means ‘ on condition that’ : cf. Thuc. i.113 σπονδὰςποιησάμενοιἐφ ʼ ᾧτοὺςἅνδραςκομιοῦνται , ‘ on condition of getting back their prisoners,’ &c. The plural ἐφ ʼ οἷς is more common, as in ἀνθ ʼ ὧν , ἐξὦν , δι ʼ ὧν . In N. T. the phrase occurs three times, always as it would seem = propterea quod, ‘ because’ : cf. 2 Corinthians 5:4 στενάζομενβαρούμενοι · ἐφ ʼ ᾦοὐθέλομενἐκδύσασθαικ .τ .λ .; Philippians 3:12 ἐφ ʼ ᾧκαὶκατελήφθηνὑπὸΧ . Ἰ . (where ‘ seeing that’ or ‘ because’ appears to be the more probable rendering). So Phavorinus (d. 1537; a lexicographer of the Renaissance period, who incorporated the contents of older works, but here seems to be inventing his examples) ἐφ ʼ ᾧἀντὶτοῦδιότιλέγουσινἈττικοί , οἷονἐφ ʼ ᾧτὴνκλοπὴνεἰργάσωκ .τ .λ . ἐφ ʼ ᾧπάντεςἥμαρτον . Here lies the crux of this difficult passage. In what sense did ‘ all sin’ ? (1) Many, including even Meyer, though explaining ἐφ ʼ ᾧ as neut. rather than masc., yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent to that which it has if the antecedent of ᾧ is Ἀδάμ . Bengel has given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante, ‘ all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam,’ his sin involved theirs. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important to be left to be understood. If St. Paul had meant this, why did he not say so? The insertion of ἐνἈδάμ would have removed all ambiguity. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part supply nothing, but take ἥμαρτον in its usual sense: ‘ all sinned in their own persons, and on their own initiative.’ So Euthym.-Zig.: διότιπάντεςἥμαρτονἀκολουθήσαντεςτῷπροπάτορικατάγετὸἁμαρτῆσαι . The objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ: besides, St. Paul goes on to show in the same breath that they could not sin in the same way that Adam did. Sin implies law; but Adam’ s descendants had no law. (3) It is possible however to take ἥμαρτον in its ordinary sense without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. If they sinned, their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited from Adam. So practically Stuart, Fricke, Weiss, &c. There still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with what follows: see the next note. It is a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. Immediately after laying down that the sin of Adam’ s descendants is due to that malignitas radicis which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full below), the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam’ s due to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had: Et deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem, in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam et omnes generationes eius, utebantur enim et ipsi corde maligno (4 Ezra 3:25 f.). Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. Baruch. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it: see the fuller note below. 13. ἄχριγὰρνόμουκ .τ .λ . At first sight this seems to give a reason for just the opposite of what is wanted: it seems to prove not that πάντεςἤμαρτον , but that however much men might sin they had not at least the full guilt of sin. This is really what St. Paul aims at proving. There is an under-current all through the passage, showing how there was something else at work besides the guilt of individuals. That ‘ something’ is the effect of Adam’ s Fall. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin; and the Fall linked together sin and death. St. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did away with all responsibility. He has already laid down most distinctly that Gentiles, though without such written law, have law enough to be judged by (2:12-16); and Jews before the time of Moses were only in the position of Gentiles. But the degree of their guilt could not be the same either as that of Adam, or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation. Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether, apart from Adam, pre-Mosaic sins would have been punishable with death. What St. Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the giving of the Law, the fate of mankind, to an extent and in a way which he does not define, was directly traceable to Adam’ s Fall. ἁμαρτίαδὲοὐκἐλλογεῖταικ .τ .λ . The thought is one which had evidently taken strong hold on St. Paul: see on 4:15, and the parallels there quoted. ἐλλογεῖται : ‘ brought into account’ (Gif.), as of an entry made in a ledger. The word also occurs in Philemon 1:18, where see Lightfoot’ s note. ἐλλογεῖται א c B C D E F G K L P, &c., ἐλλογᾶται א d: ἐνελογεῖτο א *, ἐλλογᾶτο A 52 108; imputabatur Vulg. codd. Ambrstr. al. The imperf. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. As to the form of the verb: ἐλλόγα is decisively attested in Philemon 1:18. but it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. Paul is employing a different amanuensis: however, as the tendency of the MSS is rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them, there is perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour of ἐλλογᾶται : see Westcott and Hort, Notes on Orthography in Appendix to Introd. p. 166 ff. 14. ἐβασίλευσενὁθάνατος . St. Paul appeals to the universal prevalence of death, which is personified, as sin had been just before, under the figure of a grim tyrant, in proof of the mischief wrought by Adam’ s Fall. Nothing but the Fall could account for that universal prevalence. Sin and death had their beginnings together, and they were propagated side by side. On the certainty and universality of Death, regarded as a penalty, comp. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. ii.59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est … In omnes constitutum est capitale supplicium et quidem constitutione iustissima. nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris, quorum eadem causa et sors eadem est. Similarly Philo speaks of τὸνσυμφυᾶνεκρὸνἡμῶν , τὸσῶμα (De Gigant. 3; ed. Mang. i.264). Elsewhere he goes a step further and asserts ὅτιπαντὶγεννητῷ … συμφυὲςτὸἁμαρτάνειν . For parallels in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch. see below. ἐπὶτοὺςμὴἁμαρτήσαντας . A number of authorities, mostly Latin Fathers, but including also the important margin of Cod. 67 with three other cursives, the first hand of d, and the Greek of Orig. at least once, omit the negative, making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. So Orig.-lat. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly, Latin MSS. known to Aug., the ‘ older Latin MSS.’ according to Ambrstr. and Sedulius. The comment of Ambrstr. is interesting as showing a certain grasp of critical principles, though it was difficult for any one in those days to have sufficient command of MSS. to know the real state of the evidence. Ambrstr. prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS., because those with which he is acquainted are older than the Greek, and represent, as he thinks, an older form of text. He claims that this form has the support of Tertullian, Cyprian and Victorinus— a statement which we are not at present able to verify. He accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical corruption. There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a negative in Romans 4:19 (q.v.), Galatians 2:5. In two out of the three cases the Western text omits the negative, but in ch. 4:19 it inserts it. τύπος : (1) the ‘ impression’ left by a sharp blow (τὸντύποντῶνἥλων John 20:25), in particular the ‘ stamp’ struck by a die; (2) inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die, ‘ copy,’ ‘ figure,’ or ‘ representation’ ; (3) by a common transition from effect to cause, ‘ mould,’ ‘ pattern,’ ‘ exemplar’ ; (4) hence in the special sense of the word type, which we have adopted from the Greek of the N. T., ‘ an event or person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another event or person.’ That which comes first in order of time is properly the type, that which comes afterwards the antitype (ἀντίτυπος 1 Peter 3:21). These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation: see esp. Cheyne, Isaiah,ii. 170 ff. . τοῦμέλλοντος . (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole comparison prevents us from taking τοῦμέλλ . as neut. = ‘ that which was to come’ (Beng., Oltramare). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written τοῦμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος . (2) Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as ὁδεύτερος or ὁἔσχατοςἈδάμ (1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Corinthians 15:47). If St. Paul had intended this, he would have written τοῦμέλλοντοςἈδάμ . (3) The context makes it clear enough who is intended The first representative of the human race as such prefigured its second Great Representative, whose coming lay in the future: this is sufficiently brought out by the expression ‘ of Him who was to be.’ ὁμέλλων thus approximates in meaning to ὁἐρχόμενος (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:19; Hebrews 10:37), which however appears not to have been, as it is sometimes regarded, a standing designation for the Messiah* In any case τοῦμέλλοντος = ‘ Him who was to come’ when Adam fell, not ‘ who is (still) to come’ (Fri. De W.). The Effects of Adam’ s Fall in Jewish Theology Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of Adam brought death not only to Adam himself but to his descendants; (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the tendency to sin; (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does not lose his responsibility. All three propositions receive some partial illustration from Jewish sources, though the Talmud does not seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject. Dr. Edersheim says expressly: ‘ So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and of the sinfulness of our whole nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbis’ (Life and Times, &c. i. 165). Still there are approximations, especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely already, the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch. (1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam’ s sin and the introduction of death. ‘ There were,’ says Dr. Edersheim, ‘ two divergent opinions— the one ascribing death to personal, the other to Adam’ s guilt’ (op. cit. i. 166). It is however allowed that the latter view greatly preponderated. Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: e.g. Wisd. 2:23 f. ὁΘεὸςἔκτισεντὸνἄνθρωπονἐπ ʼ ἀφθαρσίᾳ … φθόνῳδὲδιαβόλουθάνατοςεἰσῆλθενεἰςτὸνκόσμον , where we note the occurrence of St. Paul’ s phrase; Ecclus. 25:24 [33] δι ʼ αὐτὴνἀποθνήσκομενπάντες . The doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Baruch.: 4 Ezra 3:7 et huic (sc. Adamo) mandasti diligere viam tuam, et praeterivit eam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ( = generationibus) eius: Apoc. Baruch. xvii. 3 (Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorum qui ab eo geniti fuerunt: ibid. xxiii. 4 Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur. (2) We are warned (by Dr. Edersheim in Sp. Comm. Apocr. ad loc.) not to identify the statement of Ecclus. 25:24 [33] ἀπὸγυναικὸςἀρχὴἁμαρτίας with the N. T. doctrine of Original Sin: still it points in that direction; we have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind, and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (ἀπὸγυν .) the initium peccandi. More explicit are 4 Ezra 3:21 f. Cor enim malignum baiulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt: et facta est permanens infirmitas, et lex cum corde populi, cum malignitate radicis; et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit maiignum: ibid. iv. 30 Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area: ibid. vii. 48 (118) O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti, non est factus solius tuus casus, sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. (3) And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsibility on the part of all who sin. This appears in the passage quoted above on ver. 12 (ad fin.). To the same effect are 4 Ezr. 8:59 f. Non enim Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi, sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt nomen eius qui fecit eos: ibid. ix. 11 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc erant habentes libertatem. But the classical passage is Apoc. Baruch. liv. 15, 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit, et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt, unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futurum … Non est ergo Adam causa, nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the Talmud. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. Theol. p. 216): ‘ By the Fall man came under a curse, is guilty of death, and his right relation to God is rendered difficult. More than this cannot be said. Sin, to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation, had become a fact; the “ evil impulse” ( = cor malignum) gained the mastery over mankind, who can only resist it by the greatest efforts; before the Fall it had had power over him, but no such ascendancy (Uebermacht).’ Hence when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis ‘ there is such a thing as transmission of guilt, but not such a thing as transmission of sin (Es gibt eine Erbschuld, aber keine Erbsü nde),’ the negative proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apoc. Baruch.) insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility. It seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. Paul in too marked opposition to this. There is no fundamental inconsistency between his views and those of his contemporaries. He does not indeed either affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum before the Fall, nor does he use such explicit language as nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam: on the other hand he does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human responsibility both under the Law (ch. 7:7 ff.) and without it (2:12-15). But here, as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious subject (see p. 267 below), he practically contents himself with leaving the two complementary truths side by side. Man inherits his nature; and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free to choose; and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall. ADAM AND CHRIST 5:15-21. So far the parallelism: but note also the contrast. How superior the Work of Christ! (1) How different in quality: the one act all sin, the other act all bounty or grace! (ver. 15). (2) How different in quantity, or mode of working: one act tainting the whole race with sin, and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to be forgiven! (ver. 16). (3) How different and surpassing in its whole character and consequences: a reign of Death and a reign of Life! (ver. 17). Summarizing: Adam’ s Fall brought sin: Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has cancelled, and more than cancelled, the effect of Law (vv. 18-21). 15In both cases there is a transmission of effects: but there the resemblance ends. In all else the false step (or Fall, as we call it) of Adam and the free gift of God’ s bounty are most unlike. The fall of that one representative man entailed death upon the many members of the race to which he belonged. Can we then be surprised if an act of such different quality— the free unearned favour of God, and the gift of righteousness bestowed through the kindness of that other Representative Man, Jesus Messiah— should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall, but also brought further blessings to the whole race? 16There is a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ and the ill effects of one man’ s sinning. The sentence pronounced upon Adam took its rise in the act of a single man, and had for its result a sweeping verdict of condemnation. But the gift bestowed by God inverts this procedure. It took its rise in many faults, and it had for its result a verdict declaring sinners righteous. 17Yet once more. Through the single fault of the one man Adam the tyrant Death began its reign through that one sole agency. Much more then shall the Christian recipients of that overflowing kindness and of the inestimable gift of righteousness— much more shall they also reign, not in death but in life, through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE UNION OF THE WITH CHRIST 6:1-14. If more sin only means more grace, shall we go on sinning? Impossible. The baptized Christian cannot sin. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things which baptism assumes. Baptism has a double function. (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection. All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ. As Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with sin, so the Christian, united with Christ in his baptism, has done once for all with sin, and lives henceforth a reformed life dedicated to God. [This at least is the ideal, whatever may be the reality.] (vv. 1-11.) Act then as men who have thrown off the dominion of Sin. Dedicate all your powers to God. Be not afraid; Law, Sin’ s ally, is superseded in its hold over you by Grace (vv. 12-14). 1 Objector. Is not this dangerous doctrine? If more sin means more grace, are we not encouraged to go on sinning? 2 St. Paul. A horrible thought! When we took the decisive step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin, in such a way as would make it flat contradiction to live any longer in it. 3 Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were immersed or baptized, as our Christian phrase runs, ‘ into Christ,’ i. e. into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him, were so immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. I mean that the Christian, at his baptism, not only professes obedience to Christ but enters into a relation to Him so intimate that it may be described as actual union. Now this union, taken in connexion with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism, implies a great deal more. That symbolism recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming acts of Christ— His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And our union with Christ involves that we shall repeat those acts, in such sense as we may, i. e. in a moral and spiritual sense, in our own persons. 4 When we descended into the baptismal water, that meant that we died with Christ— to sin. When the water closed over our heads, that meant that we lay buried with Him, in proof that our death to sin, like His death, was real. But this carries with it the third step in the process. As Christ was raised from among the dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power, so we also must from henceforth conduct ourselves as men in whom has been implanted a new principle of life. 5 For it is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in one thing and not join with Him in another. If, in undergoing a death like His, we are become one with Christ as the graft becomes one with the tree into which it grows, we must also be one with Him by undergoing a resurrection like His, i. e. at once a moral, spiritual, and physical resurrection. 6 For it is matter of experience that our Old Self— what we were before we became Christians— was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism: it was killed by a process so like the Death of Christ and so wrought in conjunction with Him that it too may share in the name and associations of His Crucifixion. And the object of this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of us, prolific home and haunt of sin, might be so paralyzed and disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. 7 For just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead, so one who is (ethically) dead is certified ‘ Not Guilty’ and exempt from all the claims that Sin could make upon him. 8 But is this all? Are we to stop at the death to sin? No; there is another side to the process. If, when we became Christians, we died with Christ (morally and spiritually), we believe that we shall also live with Him (physically, as well as ethically and spiritually): 9 because we know for a fact that Christ Himself, now that He has been once raised from the dead, will not have the process of death to undergo again. Death has lost its hold over Him for ever. 10 For He has done with Death, now that He has done once for all with Sin, by bringing to an end that earthly state which alone brought Him in contact with it. Henceforth He lives in uninterrupted communion with God. 11 In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead, inert and motionless as a corpse, in all that relates to sin, but instinct with life and responding in every nerve to those Divine claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought by your union with Jesus Messiah. 12 I exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over this frail body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. 13 Do not, as you are wont, place hand, eye, and tongue, as weapons stained with unrighteousness, at the service of Sin; but dedicate yourselves once for all, like men who have left the ranks of the dead and breathe a new spiritual life, to God; let hand, eye, and tongue be weapons of righteous temper for Him to wield. 14 You may rest assured that in so doing Sin will have no claims or power over you, for you have left the ré gime of Law (which, as we shall shortly see, is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. 1. The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of the Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying ‘ Let us do evil, that good may come’ (3:8). He is conscious that his own teaching, if pressed to its logical conclusion, is open to this charge; and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to express the one-sided development of his own thought. Of course he does not allow the consequence for a moment; he repudiates it however not by proving a non sequitur, but by showing how this train of thought is crossed by another, even more fundamental. He is thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines, the Mystical Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his Baptism. Here we have another of those great elemental forces in the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian conclusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. St. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this force and the way in which the Christian is related to it. The various readings in this chapter are unimportant. There can be no question that we should read ἐπιμένωμεν for ἐπιμενοῦμεν in ver. 1; ζήσομεν and not ζήσωμεν in ver. 2; and that τῷΚυρίῳἡμῶν should be omitted at the end of ver. 11. In that verse the true position of εἶναι is after ἑαυτούς (א * B C, Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc.): some inferior authorities place it after νεκροὺςμέν : the Western text (A D E F G, Tert.; cf. also Pesh. Boh. Arm. Aeth.) omits it altogether. 2. οἵτινεςἀπεθάνομεν . Naturally the relative of quality: ‘ we, being what we are, men who died (in our baptism) to sin,’ &c. 3. ἢἀγνοεῖτε : ‘ Can you deny this, or is it possible that you are not aware of all that your baptism involves?’ St. Paul does not like to assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him so fundamental. The deep significance of Baptism was universally recognized; though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would have expressed that significance in the profound and original argument which follows. ἐβαπτίσθημενεἰςΧριστὸνἸησοῦν : ‘ were baptized unto union with’ ‘ Christ.’ The act of baptism was an act of incorporation into Christ. Comp. esp. Galatians 3:27 ὅσοιγὰρεἰςΧριστὸνἐβαπτίσθητε , Χριστὸνἐνεδύσασθε . This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. All the consequences which St. Paul draws follow from this union, incorporation, identification of the Christian with Christ. On the origin of the conception, see below. εἰςτὸνθάνατοναὐτοῦἐβαπτίσθημεν . This points back to ἀπεθάνομεν above. The central point in the passage is death. The Christian dies because Christ died, and he is enabled to realize His death through his union with Christ. But why is baptism said to be specially ‘ into Christ’ s death’ ? The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism is such a changed condition. We have seen that St. Paul does ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing the barrier which sin has placed between God and man. Hence, as it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian, so is it the Death of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities and privileges. The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. But this is only the first step: the Apostle goes on to show how the Death of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the believer. 4. συνετάφημεν̣̣̣θάνατον . A strong majority of the best scholars (Mey.-W. Gif. Lips. Oltr. Go.) would connect εἰςτὸνθάνατον with διὰτοῦβαπτίσματος and not with συνετάφημεν , because of (i) ἐβαπτ . εἰςτ . θαν . αὐτ . just before; (ii) a certain incongruity in the connexion of συνετάφ . with εἰςτὸνθάνατον : death precedes burial and is not a result or object of it. We are not sure that this reasoning is decisive. (i) St. Paul does not avoid these ambiguous constructions. as may be seen by 3:25 ὃνπροέθετο̣̣̣διὰτῆςπίστεωςἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι , where ἐντῷαὐτοῦαἵματι goes with προέθετο and not with διὰτῆςπίστεως . (ii) The ideas of ‘ burial’ and ‘ death’ are so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each other— burial is only death sealed and made certain. ‘ Our baptism was a sort of funeral; a solemn act of consigning us to that death of Christ in which we are made one with Him,’ Va. (iii) There is a special reason for saying here not ‘ we were buried into burial,’ but ‘ we were buried into death,’ because ‘ death’ is the keynote of the whole passage, and the word would come in appropriately to mark the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these arguments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right, and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. For the idea compare esp. Colossians 2:12 συνταφέντεςαὐτῷἐντῷβαπτίσματιἐνᾧκαὶσυνηγέρθητε . εἰςτὸνθάνατον is best taken as = ‘ into that death (of His),’ the death just mentioned: so Oltr. Gif. Va. Mou., but not Mey.-W. Go., who prefer the sense ‘ into death’ (in the abstract). In any case there is a stress on the idea of death; but the clause and the verse which follow will show that St. Paul does not yet detach the death of the Christian from the death of Christ. διὰτῆςδόξηςτοῦπατρός : δόξης here practically = ‘ power’ ; but it is power viewed externally rather than internally; the stress is laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and glorious manifestation. Va. compares John 11:40; John 11:23, where ‘ thou shalt see the glory of God’ = ‘ thy brother shall rise again.’ See note on 3:23. 5. σύμφυτοι : ‘ united by growth’ ; the word exactly expresses the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. So the Christian becomes ‘ grafted into’ Christ. For the metaphor we may compare 11:17 σὺδὲἀγριέλαιοςὢνἐνεκεντρίσθηςἐναὐτοῖς , καὶσυγκοινωνὸςτῆςῥίζηςκαὶτῆςπιότητοςτῆςἐλαίαςἐγένου , and Tennyson’ s ‘ grow incorporate into thee.’ It is a question whether we are to take σύμφ . γεγόν . directly with τῷὁμοιώμ . κ .τ .λ . or whether we are to supply τῷΧριστῷ and make τῷὁμοιώμ . dat. of respect. Probably the former, as being simpler and more natural, so far at least as construction is concerned, though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be more exactly represented by the fuller phrase. Such condensed and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in language of a quasi-colloquial kind. St. Paul uses these freer modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal literary composition. 6. γινώσκοντες : see Sp. Comm. on 1 Corinthians 8:1 (p. 299), where γινώσκω as contrasted with οἶδα is explained as signifying ‘ appreciative or experimental acquaintance.’ A slightly different explanation is given by Gif. ad loc., ‘ noting this,’ as of the idea involved in the fact, a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding . ὁπαλαιὸςἡμῶνἄνθρωπος : ‘ our old self’ ; cp. esp. Suicer, Thes. i. 352, where the patristic interpretations are collected (ἡπροτέραπολιτεία Theodrt;; ὁκατεγνωσμένοςβίος Euthym.-Zig., &c.). This phrase, with its correlative ὁκαινὸςἄνθρωπος , is a marked link of connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. (cf. Ephesians 2:15; Ephesians 4:22, Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:9). The coincidence is the more remarkable as the phrase would hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon the necessity for a change of life, and may be a coinage of St. Paul’ s. It should be noted however that ὁἐντὸςἄνθρωπος goes back to Plato (Grm.-Thay. s. v. ἄνθρωπος , 1.e.). συνεσταυρώθη : cf. Galatians 2:20 Χριστῷσυνεσταύρωμαι . There is a difference between the thought here and in Imit. Xti. II. 1xii. 3 ‘ Behold! in the cross all doth consist, and all lieth in our dying thereon; for there is no other way unto life, and unto true inward peace, but the way of the holy cross, and of daily mortification.’ This is rather the ‘ taking up the cross’ of the Gospels, which is a daily process. St. Paul no doubt leaves room for such a process (Colossians 3:5, &c.); but here he is going back to that which is its root, the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in baptism: in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. καταργηθῇ . For καταργεῖν see on 3:3. The word is appropriately used in this connexion: ‘ that the body of sin may be paralyzed,’ reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and inaction, as if it were dead. τὸσῶματῆςἁμαρτίας : the body of which sin has taken possession. Parallel phrases are 7:24 τοῦσώματοςτοῦθανάτουτούτου : Philippians 3:21 τὸσῶματῆςταπεινώσεωςἡμῶν : Colossians 2:11 [ἐντῇἀπεκδύσει ] τοῦσώματοςτῆςσαρκός . The gen. has the general sense of ‘ belonging to,’ but acquires a special shade of meaning in each case from the context; ‘ the body which is given over to death,’ ‘ the body in its present state of degradation,’ ‘ the body which is so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses.’ Here τὸσῶματῆςἁμαρτίας must be taken closely together, because it is not the body, simply as such, which is to be killed, but the body as the seat of sin. This is to be killed, so that Sin may lose its slave. τοῦμηκέτιδουλεύειν . On τοῦ with inf. as expressing purpose see esp. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 342. τῇἁμαρτίᾳ : ἁμαρτία , as throughout this passage, is personified as a hard taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. 7. ὁγὰρἀποθανὼν̣̣̣ἁμαρτίας . The argument is thrown into the form of a general proposition, so that ὁἀποθανών must be taken in the widest sense, ‘ he who has undergone death in any sense of the term’ — physical or ethical. The primary sense is however clearly physical: ‘ a dead man has his quittance from any claim that Sin can make against him’ : what is obviously true of the physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. Comp. 1 Peter 4:1 ὅτιὁπαθὼνσαρκὶπέπαυταιἁμαρτίας : also the Rabbinical parallel quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. ‘ when a man is dead he is free from the law and the commandments.’ Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an ‘ acknowledged locus communis,’ which would considerably weaken the force of the literary coincidence between the two Apostles. δεδικαίωταιἀπὸτῆςἁμαρτίας . The sense of δεδικαίωται is still forensic: ‘ is declared righteous, acquitted from guilt.’ The idea is that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave: proof being put in that the slave is dead, the verdict must needs be that the claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable; Sin loses its suit. 8. συζήσομεν . The different senses of ‘ life’ and ‘ death’ always lie near together with St. Paul, and his thought glides backwards and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly; now he lays a little more stress on the physical sense, now on the ethical; at one moment on the present state and at another on the future. Here and in ver. 9 the future eternal life is most prominent; but ver. 10 is transitional, and in ver. 11 we are back again at the stand-point of the present. 9. If the Resurrection opened up eternity to Christ it will do so also to the Christian. κυριεύει . Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. Death loses its dominium over Christ altogether. That which gave Death its hold upon Him was sin, the human sin with which He was brought in contact by His Incarnation. The connexion was severed once for all by Death, which set Him free for ever. 10. ὃγὰρἀπέθανε . The whole clause forms a kind of cognate accus. after the second ἀπέθανεν (Win. § xxiv. 4, p. 209 E. T.); Euthym.-Zig. paraphrases τὸνθάνατονὃνἀπέθανεδιὰτὴνἁμαρτίανἀπέθανετὴνἡμετέραν , where however τῇἁμαρτίᾳ is not rightly represented by διὰτὴνἁμαρτίαν . τῇἁμαρτίᾳἀπέθανεν . In what sense did Christ die to sin? The phrase seems to point back to ver. 7 above: Sin ceased to have any claim upon Him. But how could Sin have a claim upon Him ‘ who had no acquaintance with sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:21)? The same verse which tells us this supplies the answer: τὸνμὴγνόνταἁμαρτίανὑπὲρἡμῶνἁμαρτίανἐποίησεν , ‘ the Sinless One for our sake was treated as if He were sinful.’ The sin which hung about Him and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 1 Peter 2:22, 1 Peter 2:24). It was in His Death that this pressure of human sin culminated; but it was also in His Death that it came to an end, decisively and for ever. ἐφάπαξ . The decisiveness of the Death of Christ is specially insisted upon in Ep. to Hebrews. This is the great point of contrast with the Levitical sacrifices: they did and it did not need to be repeated (cf. Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:10; also 1 Peter 3:18). ζῇτῷΘεῷ . Christ died for (in relation to) Sin, and lives hence-forth for God. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made Him also liable to death, is broken. No other power κυριεύειαὐτοῦ but God. This phrase ζῇτῷΘεῷ naturally suggests ‘ the moral’ application to the believer. 11. λογίζεσθεἑαυτούς . The man and his ‘ self’ are distinguished. The ‘ self’ is not the ‘ whole self,’ but only that part of the man which lay under the dominion of sin. [It will help us to bear this in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter.] This part of the man is dead, so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its prey; but his true self is alive, and alive for God, through its union with the risen Christ, who also lives only for God. λογίζεσθε : not indic. (as Beng. Lips.) but imper., preparing the way, after St. Paul’ s manner, for the direct exhortation of the next paragraph. ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ . This phrase is the summary expression of the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms, as we have seen, one of the main pillars of St. Paul’ s theology. The chief points seem to be these. (1) The relation is conceived as a local relation. The Christian has his being ‘ in’ Christ, as living creatures ‘ in’ the air, as fish ‘ in’ the water, as plants ‘ in’ the earth (Deissmann, p. 84; see below). (2) The order of the words is invariably ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , not ἐνἸησοῦΧριστῷ (Deissmann, p. 88; cp. also Haussleiter, as referred to on p. 86 sup.). We find however ἐντῷἸησοῦ in Ephesians 4:21, but not in the same strict application. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words in this order ἐνΧρ . Ἰ . always relates to the glorified Christ regarded as πνεῦμα , not to the historical Christ. (4) The corresponding expression Χριστὸςἔντινι is best explained by the same analogy of ‘ the air.’ Man lives and breathes ‘ in the air,’ and the air is also ‘ in the man’ (Deissmann, p. 92). Deissmann’ s monograph is entitled Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. It is a careful and methodical investigation of the subject, somewhat too rigorous in pressing all examples of the use into the same mould, and rather inclined to realistic modes of conception. A very interesting question arises as to the origin of the phrase. Herr Deissmann regards it as a creation— and naturally as one of the most original creations— of St. Paul. And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. Approximations however are found more or less sporadically, in 1 St. Peter , in the Acts (4:2 ἐντῷἸησοῦ : 9, 10 ἐντῷὀνόματιἸησοῦΧριστοῦ : 12; 13:39 ἐντούτῳπᾶςὁπιστεύωνδικαιοῦται ), and in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (ἐνἐμοί , μένεινἐνἐμοί John 6:56; Job 14:20, 30; Job 15:2-7; 16:33; 17:21), in the First Epistle of St. John (ἐναὐτῷ , ἐντῷυἱῷεἶναι , μένειν 2:5, 6, 8, 24, 27, 28; 3:6, 24; 5:11, 20; ἔχειντὸνυἱόν 5:12), and also in the Apocalypse (ἐνἸησοῦ 1:9; ἐνΚυρίῳ 14:13). Besides the N. T. there are the Apostolic Fathers, whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to which it is directly traceable to St. Paul*. The phrase ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ occurs in 1 Clem. 32:4; 38:1; Ign. Eph. i. 1; Trall. ix. 2; Rom. i. 1; ii. 2 The commoner phrases are ἐνΧριστῷ in Clem.-Rom. and ἐνἸησοῦΧριστῷ which is frequent in Ignat. The distinction between ἐνἸησοῦΧριστῷ and ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ is by this time obliterated. In view of these phenomena and the usage of N. T. it is natural to ask whether all can be accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with St. Paul. In spite of the silence of Evv. Synopt. it seems more probable that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself. This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of but few of the first disciples but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance and expansion. 12. βασιλευέτω : cf. 5:21 of Sin; 5:14, 17 of Death. With this verse comp. Philo, De Gigant. 7 (Mang. i.266) Αἴτιονδὲτῆςἀνεπιστημοσύνηςμέγιστονἡσὰρξκαὶἡπρὸςσάρκαοἰκείωσις . 13. Observe the change of tense: παριστάνετε , ‘ go on yielding,’ by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses; παραστήσατε , ‘ dedicate by one decisive act, one resolute effort.’ ὅπλα : ‘ weapons’ (cf. esp. Romans 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:7; 2 Corinthians 10:4). ἀδικίας and δικαιοσύνης are gen. qualitatis. For a like military metaphor more fully worked out comp. Ephesians 6:11-17. 14. ἁμαρτίαγάρ . You are not, as you used to be, constantly harassed by the assaults of sin, aggravated to your consciences by the prohibitions of Law. The fuller explanation of this aggravating effect of Law is coming in what follows, esp. in ch. 7; and it is just like St. Paul to ‘ set up a finger-post,’ pointing to the course his argument is to take, in the last clause of a paragraph. It is like him too to go off at the word νόμον into a digression, returning to the subject with which the chapter opened, and looking at it from another side. The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ How did St. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union? Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. But that guiding, as it usually does, operated through natural and human channels. The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. The basis of the doctrine is the Apostle’ s own experience. His conversion was an intellectual change, but it was also something much more. It was an intense personal apprehension of Christ, as Master, Redeemer and Lord. But that apprehension was so persistent and so absorbing; it was such a dominant element in the life of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less than an actual identification of will. In the case of ordinary friendship and affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose and aim so to spread itself over the character, and so to permeate thought and feeling, that those who are joined together by this invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they were a single person and not two. But we can understand that in St. Paul’ s case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ, and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward motions of his own spirit, the process of identification had a more than common strength and completeness. It was accomplished in that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed such remarkable gifts— gifts which caused him to be singled out as the recipient of special Divine communications. Hence it was that there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to express and succeeds in expressing through language which is practically the language of union. Nothing short of this seemed to do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the Apostle attained to. He spoke of himself as one with Christ. And then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts in the Life of Christ— the acts which were in a special sense associated with man’ s redemption— His Death, Burial and Resurrection — that when he came to analyze his own feelings, and to dissect this idea of oneness, it was natural to him to see in it certain stages, corresponding to those great acts of Christ, to see in it something corresponding to death, something corresponding to burial (which was only the emphasizing of death), and something corresponding to resurrection. Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. An imagination as lively as St. Paul’ s soon found in it analogies to the same process. That plunge beneath the running waters was like a death; the moment’ s pause while they swept on overhead was like a burial; the standing erect once more in air and sunlight was a species of resurrection. Nor did the likeness reside only in the outward rite, it extended to its inner significance. To what was it that the Christian died? He died to his old self, to all that he had been, whether as Jew or Gentile, before he became a Christian. To what did he rise again? Clearly to that new life to which the Christian was bound over. And in this spiritual death and resurrection the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of union with Christ, identification of will with His. It was this which enabled the Christian to make his parting with the past and embracing of new obligations real. There is then, it will be seen, a meeting and coalescence of a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant doctrine. On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance of Him as Messiah and Lord, that acceptance giving rise to an impulse of strong adhesion, and the adhesion growing into an identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described as union. Further, there is the distributing of this sense of union over the cardinal acts of Christ’ s Death, Burial and Resurrection. Then on the side of the man there is his formal ratification of the process by the undergoing of Baptism, the symbolism of which all converges to the same end; and there is his practical assumption of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing of Christianity commit him— the breaking with his tainted past, the entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. Paul are his own, but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the writings of St. John and St. Peter, the New Birth through water and Spirit (John 3:5), the being begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23), the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah (1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 3:21) in St. Peter; and there is a certain partial coincidence even in the ἀπεκύησεν of St. James (James 1:18). It is the great merit of Matthew Arnold’ s St. Paul and Protestantism, whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness, that it did seize with remarkable force and freshness on this part of St. Paul’ s teaching. And the merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that teaching is, and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer. Matthew Arnold saw, and expressed with all his own lucidity, the foundation of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle’ s mystical language is based. He gives to it the name of ‘ faith,’ and it is indeed the only kind of faith which he recognizes. Nor is he wrong in giving the process this name, though, as it happens, St. Paul has not as yet spoken of ‘ faith’ in this connexion, and does not so speak of it until he comes to Ephesians 3:17. It was really faith, the living apprehension of Christ, which lies at the bottom of all the language of identification and union. ‘ If ever there was a case in which the wonder-working power of attachment, in a man for whom the moral sympathies and the desire for righteousness were all-powerful, might employ itself and work its wonders, it was here. Paul felt this power penetrate him; and he felt, also, how by perfectly identifying himself through it with Christ, and in no other way, could he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. He thus found a point in which the mighty world outside man, and the weak world inside him, seemed to combine for his salvation. The struggling stream of duty, which had not volume enough to bear him to his goal, was suddenly reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. To this new and potent influence Paul gave the name of faith’ (St. Paul and Protestantism, p. 69 f.). ‘ It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it contains. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious sense which we have attributed to Paul. … The elemental power of sympathy and emotion in us, a power which extends beyond the limits of our own will and conscious activity, which we cannot measure and control, and which in each of us differs immensely in force, volume, and mode of manifestation, he calls into full play, and sets it to work with all its strength and in all its variety. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this power: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh, to live with Christ to the law of the mind. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (2 Corinthians 4:10), Paul’ s central doctrine, and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and originality. … Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which reason and conscience disapproved, reason and conscience could yet not govern, and had to yield to them. This, as we have seen, is what drove Paul almost to despair. Well, then, how did Paul’ s faith, working through love, help him here? It enabled him to reinforce duty by affection. In the central need of his nature, the desire to govern these motions of unrighteousness, it enabled him to say: Die to them! Christ did. If any man be in Christ, said Paul,— that is, if any man identifies himself with Christ by attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life,— he is a new creature; he can do, and does, what Christ did. First, he suffers with him. Christ, throughout His life and in His death, presented His body a living sacrifice to God; every self-willed impulse, blindly trying to assert itself without respect of the universal order, he died to. You, says Paul to his disciple, are to do the same. … If you cannot, your attachment, your faith, must be one that goes but a very little way. In an ordinary human attachment, out of love to a woman, out of love to a friend, out of love to a child, you can suppress quite easily, because by sympathy you become one with them and their feelings, this or that impulse of selfishness which happens to conflict with them, and which hitherto you have obeyed. All impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ’ s feelings, He showed it by dying to them all; if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy, you can die to them also. Then, secondly, if you thus die with Him, you become transformed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him. … You rise with Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order, that sense of pleasing God who trieth the hearts, which is life and peace, and which grows more and more till it becomes glory’ (ibid. pp. 75-78). Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found in a lay sermon, The Witness of God, by the philosopher, T. H. Green (London, 1883; also in Works). Mr. Green was as far removed as Matthew Arnold from conventional theology, and there are traces of Hegelianism in what follows for which allowance should be made, but his mind had a natural affinity for this side of St. Paul’ s teaching, and he has expressed it with great force and moral intensity. To this the brief extracts given will do but imperfect justice, and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. ‘ The death and rising again of the Christ, as [St. Paul] conceived them, were not separate and independent events. They were two sides of the same act— an act which relatively to sin, to the flesh, to the old man, to all which separates from God, is death; but which, just for that reason, is the birth of a new life relatively to God, … God was in [Christ], so that what He did, God did. A death unto life, a life out of death, must then be in some way the essence of the divine nature— must be an act which, though exhibited once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, was yet eternal— the act of God Himself. For that very reason, however, it was one perpetually re-enacted, and to be re-enacted, by man. If Christ died for all, all died in Him: all were buried in His grave to be all made alive in His resurrection … In other words, He constitutes in us a new intellectual consciousness, which transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life.’ There is special value in the way in which the difference is brought out between the state of things to which the individual can attain by his own effort and one in which the change is wrought from without. The first ‘ would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-seeking. On the other hand, presented as the continuous act of God Himself, as the eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father, it is for us and may be in us, but is not of us. Nay, it is just because not of us, that it may be in us. Because it is the mind of Christ, and Christ is God’ s, in the contemplation of it we are taken out of ourselves, we slip the natural man and appropriate that mind which we behold. Constrained by God’ s manifested love, we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours’ (The Witness of God, pp. 7-10). We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history of Religion. ‘ It is in Christendom that, according to the providence of God, this power has been exhibited; not indeed either adequately or exclusively, but most fully. In the religions of the East, the idea of a death to the fleshly self as the end of the merely human, and the beginning of a divine life, has not been wanting; nor, as a mere idea, has it been very different from that which is the ground of Christianity. But there it has never been realized in action, either intellectually or morally. The idea of the withdrawal from sense has remained abstract. It has not issued in such a struggle with the superficial view of things, as has gradually constituted the science of Christendom. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged from the esoteric state. It has had no outlet into the life of charity, but a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence, and has been finally mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir’ (ibid. p. 21). One of the services which Mr. Green’ s lay sermon may do us is in helping us to understand— not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of ‘ The Way’ in Dr. Hort’ s posthumous The Way, the Truth, and the Life (Cambridge and London, 1893). When it is contended, ‘ first that the whole seeming maze of history in nature and man, the tumultuous movement of the world in progress, has running through it one supreme dominating Way; and second, that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene is that Way’ (The Way, &c. p. 20 f.), we can hardly be wrong, though the point might have been brought out more clearly, in seeking a scriptural illustration in St. Paul’ s teaching as to the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once for all in the past. They did so take place, and their historical reality, as well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Christ, must be insisted upon. But they are more than this: they constitute a law, a predisposed pattern or plan, which other human lives have to follow. ‘ Death unto life,’ ‘ life growing out of death,’ is the inner principle or secret, applied in an indefinite variety of ways, but running through the history of most, perhaps all, religious aspiration and attainment. Everywhere there must be the death of an old self and the birth of a new. It must be admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. Paul, and, as it would seem, yet more widely extended by St. John, is difficult to grasp intellectually, and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words. But the conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel: here, as we see it in St. Paul, it bears all the impress of his intense and prophet-like penetration: and there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness than it has done. This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at rather considerable length, and for invoking the assistance of those who, just by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity, have brought to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them, if not exactly to discoveries, yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. THE FROM LAW TO GRACE. ANALOGY OF SLAVERY 6:15-23. Take an illustration from common life— the condition of slavery. The Christian was a slave of sin; his business was uncleanness; his wages, death. But he has been emancipated from this service, only to enter upon another— that of Righteousness. 15Am I told that we should take advantage of our liberty as subjects of Grace and not of Law, to sin? Impossible! 16Are you not aware that to render service and obedience to any one is to be the slave of that person or power to which obedience is rendered? And so it is here. You are either slaves of Sin, and the end before you death; or you are true to your rightful Master, and the end before you righteousness. 17But, thank God, the time is past when you were slaves of Sin; and at your baptism you gave cordial assent to that standard of life and conduct in which you were first instructed and to the guidance of which you were then handed over by your teachers. 18Thus you were emancipated from the service of Sin, and were transferred to the service of Righteousness. 19I am using a figure of speech taken from every-day human relations. If ‘ servitude’ seems a poor and harsh metaphor, it is one which the remains of the natural man that still cling about you will at least permit you to understand. Yours must be an undivided service. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to God, as you once devoted them to Pagan uncleanness and daily increasing licence. 20I exhort you to this. Why? Because while you were slaves to Sin, you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. 21What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush to think of? Much indeed! For the goal to which it leads is death. 22But now that, as Christians, you are emancipated from Sin and enslaved to God, you have something to show for your service— closer and fuller consecration, and your goal, eternal Life! 23For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death; while you receive— no wages, but the bountiful gift of God, the eternal Life, which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah, our Lord. 15-23. The next two sections (6:15-23; 7:1-6) might be described summarily as a description of the Christian’ s release, what it is and what it is not. The receiving of Christian Baptism was a great dividing-line across a man’ s career. In it he entered into a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and forwards. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by death: towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening influence of a new life. St. Paul now more fully expounds the nature of the change. He does so by the help of two illustrations, one from the state of slavery, the other from the state of wedlock. Each state implied certain ties, like those by which the convert to Christianity was bound before his conversion. But the cessation of these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties; it only means the substitution of new ties for the old. So is it with the slave, who is emancipated from one service only to enter upon another. So is it with the wife who, when released by the death of one husband, is free to marry again. In the remaining verses of this chapter St. Paul deals with the case of Slavery. Emancipation from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. 15. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the beginning of the chapter, but with the variation that the incentive to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling down grace, but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the strictness of the Law. St. Paul’ s reply in effect is that Christian freedom consists not in freedom to sin but in freedom from sin. ἁμαρτήσωμεν : from a late aor. ἡμάρτησα , found in LXX (Veitch, Irreg. Verbs, p. 49). Chrys. codd. Theodrt. and others, with minuscules, read ἀμαρτήσομεν . 16. A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had appealed in ‘ No man can serve two masters’ (Matthew 6:24). There are still nearer parallels in John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:19: passages however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St. Paul as that the thought was ‘ in the air’ and might occur to more writers than one. ἤτοι … ἤ : these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic way, implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Bä umlein, Partikellehre, p. 244; Kü hner, Gram. § 540. 5). 17. … εἰςὃν … διδαχῆς : stands for [ὑπηκούσατε ] τύπῳδιδαχῆςεἰςὃνπαρεδόθητε . We expect rather ὃςὑμῖνπαρεδόθη : it seems more natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teaching. The form of phrase which St. Paul uses however expresses well the experience of Christian converts. Before baptism they underwent a course of simple instruction, like that in the ‘ Two Ways’ or first part of the Didaché (see the reff. in Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 314). With baptism this course of instruction ceased, and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. This was to be henceforth their standard of living. τύπονδιδαχῆς . For τύπος see the note on ch. 5:14. The third of the senses there given is by far the most usual with St. Paul, and there can be little doubt that that is the meaning here. So among the ancients Chrys. Euthym.-Zig. , and among moderns all the English commentators with Oltr. and Lips. To suppose, as some leading Continental scholars (De W. Mey.-W. Go.) have done, that some special ‘ type of doctrine,’ whether Jewish-Christian or Pauline, is meant, is to look with the eyes of the nineteenth century and not with those of the first (cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 32 ‘ Nothing like this notion of a plurality of Christian τύποιδιδαχῆς occurs anywhere else in the N. T., and it is quite out of harmony with all the context’ ). 19. ἀνθρώπινονλέγω . St. Paul uses this form of phrase where he wishes to apologize for having recourse to some common illustration to express spiritual truths. So Chrys. (first explanation) ὡσανεὶἔλεγεν , ἀπὸἀνθρωπίνωνλογισμῶν , ἀπὸτῶνἐνσυνηθείᾳγινομένων . διὰτὴνἀσθένειαντῆςσαρκός . Two explanations are possible: (1) ‘ because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of Christianity’ (Chrys. Theodrt. Weiss and others); (2) ‘ because of the difficulties of apprehension, from defective spiritual experience, which prevent the understanding of its deeper truths’ (most moderns). Clearly this is more in keeping with the context. In any case the clause refers to what has gone before, not (as Orig. Chrys., &c.) to what follows. σάρξ = human nature in its weakness, primarily physical and moral, but secondarily intellectual. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is determined by moral, by the limitations of character: cf. φρονεῖντὰτῆςσαρκός , φρόνηματῆςσαρκός Romans 8:5 f.; σοφοὶκατὰσάρκα 1 Corinthians 1:26. The idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Corinthians 3:2 γάλαὑμᾶςἐπότισα , οὐβρῶμα · οὔπωγὰρἠδύνασθε . τῇἀκαθαρασίᾳ . ἀκαθαρσία and ἀνομία fitly describe the characteristic features of Pagan life (cf. 1:24 ff.). As throughout the context these forms of sin are personified; they obtain a mastery over the man; and εἰςτὴνἀνομίαν describes the effect of that mastery— ‘ to the practice of iniquity.’ With these verses (19-21) compare especially 1 Peter 4:1-5. εἰςἁγιασμόν . Mey. (but not Weiss) Lips. Oltr. Go. would make ἁγιασμός here practically = ἁγιωσύνη , i. e. not so much the process of consecration as the result of the process. There is certainly this tendency in language; and in some of the places in which the word is used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. g. 1 Thessalonians 4:4, where it is joined with τιμή ; 1 Timothy 2:15, where it is joined with πίστις and ἀγάπη ). But in the present passage the word may well retain its proper meaning: the members are to be handed over to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God’ s service, not to become fit all at once. So Weiss Gif. Va. Mou. . For the radical meaning see the note on ἄγιος ch. 1:7, and Dr. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 206: ἁγιασμός = ‘ the process of fitting for acceptable worship,’ a sense which comes out clearly in Hebrews 12:14 διώκετε … τὸνἁγιασμὸνοὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνΚύριον . The word occurs some ten times (two vv. ll.) in LXX and in Ps. Sol. 17:33, but is not classical. 21. τίναοὖν … ἐπαισχύνεσθε ; Where does the question end and the answer begin? (1) Most English commentators and critics (Treg. WH. RV. as well as Gif. Va.) carry on the question to ἐπαισχύνεσθε . In that case ἐκείνων must be supplied before ἐφ ʼ οἷς , and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of ἐκείνων in the sentence following (comp. ἀποθανόντεςἐνᾧκατειχόμεθα 7:6 below). There would then be a common enough ellipse before τὸγὰρτέλος , ‘ What fruit had ye … ? [None:] for the end,’ &c. (2) On the other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. Weiss Lips., though not Mey.) put the question at τότε , and make ἐφ ʼ οἷςἐπαισχύνεσθε part of the answer. ‘ What fruit had ye then? Things [pleasures, gratifications of sense] of which you are now ashamed: for their end is death.’ So, too, Theod.-Mops. (in Cramer) expressly: κατ ʼ ἐρώτησινἀναγνωστέοντὸτίναοὖνκάρπονεἴχετετότε , εἶτακατὰἀπόκρισινἐφ ʼ οἷςνῦνἐπαισχύνεσθε . Both interpretations are possible, but the former, as it would seem, is more simple and natural (Gif.). When two phrases link together so easily as ἐφ ʼ οἷςἐπαισχ . with what precedes, it is a mistake to separate them except for strong reasons; nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for distinguishing between near consequences and remote. τὸγάρ : τὸμὲνγάρ א c B D* E F G. There is the usual ambiguity of readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. The probability is that the reading belongs to the Western element in B, and that μέν was introduced through erroneous antithesis to νυνὶδέ . 23. ὀψώνια . From a root πεπ - we get ἕψω , ὄψον , ‘ cooked’ meat, fish, &c. as contrasted with bread. Hence the compound ὀψώνιον = (1) provision-money, ration-money, or the rations in kind given to troops; (2) in a more general sense, ‘ wages.’ The word is said to have come in with Menander: it is proscribed by the Atticists, but found freely in Polybius, 1 Macc. &c. (Sturz, Dial. Maced. p. 187). χάρισμα . Tertullian, with his usual picturesque boldness, translates this by donativum (De Res. Carn. c. 47 Stipendia enim delinquentiae mors, donativum autem dei vita aeterna). It is not probable that St. Paul had this particular antithesis in his mind, though no doubt he intends to contrast ὀψώνια and χάρισμα . א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus B Cod. Vaticanus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus Cyr.-Alex. Cyril of Alexandria. A Cod. Alexandrinus D Cod. Claromontanus E Cod. Sangermanensis F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus Tert. Tertullian. Pesh. Peshitto. Boh. Bohairic. Arm. Armenian. Aeth. Ethiopic. &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa. Gif. Gifford. Lips. Lipsius. Oltr. Oltramare. Go. Godet. Va. Vaughan. Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. Grm.-Thay. Grimm-Thayer’ s Lexicon. Win. Winer’ s Grammar. Beng. Bengel. * It is rather strange that this question does not appear to be touched either by Bp. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Harnack. There is more to the point in the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Texte u. Unters. xii. 3, but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. Ign. Ignatius. Clem.-Rom. Clement of Rome. Chrys. Chrysostom. codd. codices. Theodrt. Theodoret. De W. De Wette. Orig. Origen. Mey. Meyer. Treg. Tregelles. WH. Westcott and Hort. RV. Revised Version. Tisch. Tischendorf. Theod.-Mops. Theodore of Mopsuessia. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c THE FROM LAW TO GRACE. ANALOGY OF 7:1-6. Take another illustration from the Law of Marriage. The Marriage Law only binds a woman while her husband lives. So with the Christian. He was wedded, as it were, to his old sinful state; and all that time he was subject to the law applicable to that state. But this old life of his was killed through his identification with the death of Christ; so as to set him free to contract a new marriage— with Christ, no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit. 1 I say that you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. You will see how: unless you need to be reminded of a fact which your acquaintance with the nature of Law will readily suggest to you, that Law, for the man who comes under it, is only in force during his lifetime. 2Thus for instance a woman in wedlock is forbidden by law to desert her living husband. But if her husband should die, she is absolved from the provisions of the statute ‘ Of the Husband.’ 3Hence while her husband is alive, she will be styled ‘ an adulteress’ if she marry another man: but if her husband die, she is free from that statute, so that no one can call her an adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 We may apply this in an allegory, in which the wife is the Christian’ s ‘ self’ or ‘ ego’ ; the first husband, his old unregenerate state, burdened with all the penalties attaching to it. You then, my brethren in Christ, had this old state killed in you— brought to an abrupt and violent end— by your identification with the crucified Christ, whose death you reproduce spiritually. And this death of your old self left you free to enter upon a new marriage with the same Christ, who triumphed over death— a triumph in which you too share— that in union with Him you, and indeed all of us Christians, may be fruitful in good works, to the glory and praise of God. 5Our new marriage must be fruitful, as our old marriage was. When we had nothing better to guide us than this frail humanity of ours, so liable to temptation, at that time too a process of generation was going on. The impressions of sense, suggestive of sin, stimulated into perverse activity by their legal prohibition, kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of Death. 6But now all that has been brought to an end. Law and the state of sin are so inextricably linked together, that in dying, at our baptism, a moral death, to that old state of sin we were absolved or discharged from the Law, which used to hold us prisoners under the penalties to which sin laid us open. And through this discharge we are enabled to serve God in a new state, the ruling principle of which is Spirit, in place of that old state, presided over by Written Law. 1-6. The text of this section— and indeed of the whole chapter— is still, ‘ Ye are not under Law, but under Grace’ ; and the Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transition from Law to Grace has been effected, and what should be its consequences. In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount of intricacy, due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the middle of the paragraph. The Apostle begins by showing how with the death of her husband the law which binds a married woman becomes a dead letter. He goes on to say in the application, not ‘ The Law is dead to you,’ but ‘ You are dead to the Law’ — which looks like a change of position, though a legitimate one. Gif. however may be right in explaining the transition rather differently, viz. by means of the παλαιὸςἄνθρωπος of ch. 6:6. The ‘ self’ of the man is double; there is an ‘ old self’ and a ‘ new self’ ; or rather the ‘ self’ remains the same throughout, but it passes through different states, or phases. Bearing this in mind we shall find the metaphor work out consistently. The Wife = the true self, or ego, which is permanent through all change. The (first) Husband = the old state before conversion to Christianity. The ‘ law of the husband’ = the law which condemned that old state. The new Marriage = the union upon which the convert enters with Christ. The crucial phrase is ὑμεῖςἐθανατώθητε in ver. 4. According to the way in which we explain this will be our explanation of the whole passage. See the note ad loc. There is yet another train of thought which comes in with vv. 4-6. The idea of marriage naturally suggests the offspring of marriage. In the case of the Christian the fruit of his union with Christ is a holy life. 1. Ἤἀγνοεῖτε : [‘ surely you know this— that the ré gime of Law has come to an end, and that Grace has superseded it.] Or do you require to be told that death closes all accounts, and therefore that the state of things to which Law belongs ceased through the death of the Christian with Christ— that mystical death spoken of in the last chapter?’ γινώσκουσιγὰρνόμονλαλῶ : ‘ I speak’ ‘ to men acquainted with Law.’ At once the absence of the article and the nature of the case go to show that what is meant here is not Roman Law (Weiss), of which there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul would possess any detailed knowledge, nor yet the Law of Moses more particularly considered (Lips.), but a general principle of all Law; an obvious axiom of political justice— that death clears all scores, and that a dead man can no longer be prosecuted or punished (cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 24). 2. ἡγὰρὕπανδροςγυνή : [‘ the truth of this may be proved by a case in point.] For a woman in the state of wedlock is bound by law to her living husband.’ ὕπανδρος : a classical word, found in LXX. κατήργηται : ‘ is completely (perf.) absolved or discharged’ (lit. ‘ nullified’ or ‘ annulled,’ her status as a wife is abolished). The two correlative phrases are treated by St. Paul as practically convertible: ‘ the woman is annulled from the law,’ and ‘ the law is annulled to the woman.’ For καταργεῖν see on 3:3. ἀπὸτοῦνόμουτοῦἀνδρός : from that section of the statute-book which is headed ‘ The Husband,’ the section which lays down his rights and duties. Gif. compares ‘ the law of the leper’ Leviticus 14:2; ‘ the law of the Nazirite’ Numbers 6:13. 3. χρηματίσει . The meanings of χρηματίζειν ramify in two directions. The fundamental idea is that of ‘ transacting business’ or ‘ managing affairs.’ Hence we get on the one hand, from the notion of doing business under a certain name, from Polybius onwards (1) ‘ to bear a name or title’ (χρηματίζειβασιλεύς Polyb. V. Lev_2); and so simply, as here, ‘ to be called or styled’ ; and on the other hand (2) from the notion of ‘ having dealings with,’ ‘ giving audience to’ a person, in a special sense, of the ‘ answers, communications, revelations,’ given by an oracle or by God. So six times in LXX of Jerem., Joseph. Antiq., Plutarch, &c. From this sense we get pass. ‘ to be warned or admonished’ by God (Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:22; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 11:7). Hence also subst. χρηματισμός , ‘ a Divine or oracular response,’ 2 Macc. 2:4; Romans 11:4. Burton (M. and T. § 69) calls the fut. here a ‘ gnomic future’ as stating ‘ what will customarily happen when occasion offers.’ τοῦμὴεἶναι = ὥστεμὴεἶναι : the stress is thrown back upon ἐλευθέρα , ‘ so as not to be,’ ‘ causing her not to be,’ — not ‘ so that she is.’ According to Burton τοῦμή here denotes ‘ conceived result’ ; but see the note on ὥστεδουλεύειν in ver. 6 below. 4. ὥστε with indic. introduces a consequences which follows as a matter of fact. καὶὑμεῖςἐθανατώθητε . We have said that the exact interpretation of the whole passage turns upon this phrase. It is commonly explained as another way of saying ‘ You had the Law killed to you.’ So Chrys. ἀκόλουθονἦνεἰπεῖν , τοῦνόμουτελευτήσαντοςοὐκρίνεσθεμοιχείας , ἀνδρὶγενόμενοιἑτέρῳ . Ἀλλ ʼ οὐκεἶπενοὕτως , ἀλλὰπῶσ ; Ἐθανατώθητετῷνόμῳ (cf. Euthym.-Zig.). In favour of this is the parallel κατήργηταιἀπὸτοῦνόμουτοῦἀνδρός in ver. 2, and κατηργήθημενἀπὸτοῦνόμου in ver. 6. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the same persons at one moment as ‘ killed’ and the next as ‘ married again.’ There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of Gif., who makes ὑμεῖς = not the whole self but the old self, i.e. the old state of the self which was really ‘ crucified with Christ’ (ch. 6:6), and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife in the allegory) free to contract a new union. This moral death of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. The Law had its hold upon him only through sin; but in discarding his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to them. Nothing can touch him further. His old heathen or Jewish antecedents have passed away; he is under obligation only to Christ. καὶὑμεῖς . The force of καί here is, ‘ You, my readers, as well as the wife in the allegory.’ διὰτοῦσώματοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . The way in which the death of the ‘ old man’ is brought about is through the identification of the Christian with the Death of Christ. The Christian takes his place, as it were, with Christ upon the Cross, and there has his old self crucified. The ‘ body’ of Christ here meant is the ‘ crucified body’ : the Christian shares in that crucifixion, and so gets rid of his sinful past. We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the last chapter (6:6), to which St. Paul also throws in an allusion in τῷἐκνεκρῶνἐγερθέντι . The two lines of symbolism really run parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them. ὁπαλαιὸςἄνθρωπος = The Husband: Crucifixion of the παλ . ἄνθ . = Death of the Husband: Resurrection = Re-Marriage: ζῃν , δουλεύειντῷΘεῷ = καρποφορεῖντῷΘεῷ . εἰςτὸγενέσθαιὑμᾶςἑτέρῳ . Lips. takes this not of ‘ being married to another husband,’ but of ‘ joining another master, ’ on the ground that there is no marriage to the Law. This however (1) is unnecessary, because marriage to the ‘ old man’ carries with it subjection to the Law, so that the dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is close and inevitable; (2) it is wrong, because of καρποφορῆσαι , which it is clearly forced and against the context to refer, as Lips. does, to anything but the offspring of marriage. καρποφορήσωμεντῷΘεῷ . The natural sequel to the metaphor of ‘ Marriage.’ The ‘ fruit’ which the Christian, wedded to Christ, is to bear is of course that of a reformed life. 5. ὅτεγὰρἦμενἐντῇ̀σαρκί . This verse develops the idea contained in καρποφορήσωμεν : the new marriage ought to be fruitful, because the old one was. εἶναιἐντῇσαρκί is the opposite of εἶναιἐντῷπνεύματι : the one is a life which has no higher object than the gratification of the senses, the other is a life permeated by the Spirit. Although σάρξ is human nature especially on the side of its frailty, it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. Paul’ s conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. It implies that it is possible to be ‘ in the body’ without being ‘ in the flesh.’ The body, as such, is plastic to influences of either kind: it may be worked upon by Sin through the senses, or it may be worked upon by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. The body itself is neutral. See esp. the excellent discussion in Gifford, pp. 48-52. τὰπαθήματατῶνἁμαρτιῶν : πάθημα has the same sort of ambiguity as our word ‘ passion.’ It means (1) an ‘ impression,’ esp. a ‘ painful impression’ or suffering; (2) the reaction which follows upon some strong impression of sense (cf. Galatians 5:24). The gen. τῶνἁμαρτιῶν = ‘ connected with sins,’ ‘ leading to sins.’ τὰδιὰτοῦνόμου . Here St. Paul, as his manner is, ‘ throws up a finger-post’ which points to the coming section of his argument. The phrase διὰτοῦνόμου is explained at length in the next paragraph: it refers to the effect of Law in calling forth and aggravating sin. ἐνηργεῖτο . The pricks and stings of passion were active in our members (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 1:6, 2 Corinthians 1:4:12; Galatians 5:6, &c.). τῷθανάτῳ : dat. commodi, contrasted with καρποφ , τῷΘεῷ above. 6. νυνὶδὲκατηργήθημενἀπὸτοῦνόμου . ‘ But as it is we’ (in our peccant part, the old man) ‘ were discharged or annulled from the Law’ (i.e. we had an end put to our relations with the Law; by the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law could wreak its vengeance; we were ‘ struck with atrophy’ in respect to it: see on ver. 2). πῶςἡμεῖςκατηργήθημεν ; τοῦκατεχομένουπαρὰτῆςἁμαρτίαςἀνθρώπουπαλαιοῦἀποθανόντοςκαὶταφέντος Chrys. We observe how Chrys. here practically comes round to the same side as Gif. The renderings of κατηργήθημεν are rather interesting, and show the difficulty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuati sumus Tert.; soluti sumus Codd. Clarom. Sangerm. Vulg. (= ‘ we were unbounden’ Wic.; ‘ we are loosed’ Rhem.); ‘ we are delivered’ Tyn. Cran. Genev. AV.; ‘ we are discharged’ RV.; nous avons é té dé gagé s Oltr. (Le Nouveau Test., Geneva, 1874); nun aber sind wir fü r das Gesetz nicht mehr da Weizsä cker (Das Neue Test., Freiburg i. B. 1882, Exo_2). ἀποθανόντες . AV. apparently read ἀποθανόντος , for which there is no MS. authority, but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom’ s (see Tisch. ad loc.). The Western text (D E F G, codd. ap. Orig.-lat. and most Latins) boldly corrects to τοῦθανατοῦ , which would go with τοῦνόμου , and which gives an easier construction, though not a better sense. After ἀποθανόντες we must supply ἑκείνῳ , just as in 6:21 we had to supply ἐκείνων . ἐνᾧκατειχόμεθα . The antecedent of ἐνᾧ is taken by nearly all commentators as equivalent to τῷνόμῳ (whether ἐκείνῳ or τούτῳ is regarded as masc. or better neutr.). Gif. argues against referring it to the ‘ old state,’ ‘ the old man,’ that this is not sufficiently suggested by the context. But wherever ‘ death’ is spoken of it is primarily this ‘ old state,’ or ‘ old man’ which dies, so that the use of the term ἀποθανόντες alone seems enough to suggest it. It was this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law; when the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold. ὥστεδουλεύειν : not ‘ so that we serve’ (RV. and most commentators), but ‘ so as to serve,’ i. e. ‘ enabling us to serve.’ The stress is thrown back upon κατηργήθημεν ,— we were so completely discharged as to set us free to serve. The true distinction between ὤστε with infin. and ὥστε with indic., which is not always observed in RV., is well stated by Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, ed. 1889, § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto, De Fals. Leg. App. in the note), and for N. T. by the late Canon T. S. Evans in the Expos. for 1882, 1:3 ff.: ὥστε with indic. states the definite result which as a matter of fact does follow; ὥστε with infin. states the contemplated result which in the natural course ought to follow. ὥστε with indic. lays stress on the effect; ὥστε with infin. on the cause. Thus in 1 Corinthians 1:7 ὥστεὑστερεῖσθαι = ‘ causing or inspiring you to feel behindhand’ (see Sp. Comm. ad loc.); in Matthew 13:32 γίνεταιδένδρον , ὥστεἐλθεῖντὰπετεινὰκαὶκατασκηνοῦν = ‘ becomes a tree big enough for the birds to come,’ &c. It will be seen that the distinction corresponds to the difference in the general character of the two moods. ἐνκαινότητιπνεύματος … παλαιότητιγράμματος . In each case the gen. is what is called of ‘ apposition’ : it denotes that in which the newness, or oldness, consists. The essential feature of the new state is that it is one of ‘ Spirit’ ; of the old state, that it is regulated by ‘ written Law.’ The period of the Paraclete has succeeded to the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above, not on an elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. A fuller explanation of the καινότηςπνεύματος is given in ch. 8. It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between γράμμα and πνεῦμα is not exactly identical with that which we are in the habit of drawing between ‘ the letter’ and ‘ the spirit’ as the ‘ literal’ and ‘ spiritual sense’ of a writing. In this antithesis γράμμα is with St. Paul always the Law of Moses, as a written code, while πνεῦμα is the operation of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. Romans 2:29; 2 Corinthians 3:6). LAW AND SIN 7:7-25. If release from Sin means release from Law, must we then identify Law with Sin? No. Law reveals the sinfulness of Sin, and by this very revelation stirs up the dormant Sin to action. But this is not because the Law itself is evil— on the contrary it is good— but that Sin may be exposed and its guilt aggravated (vv. 7-13). This is what takes place. I have a double self. But my better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong (vv. 14-17). It is equally impotent to make me do right (vv. 18-21). There is thus a constant conflict going on, from which, unaided. I can hope for no deliverance. But, God be thanked, through Christ deliverance comes! (vv. 21-25). 7 I spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law, and of the death to Sin as carrying with it a release from the Law. Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin? An intolerable thought! On the contrary it was the Law and nothing else through which I learnt the true nature of Sin. For instance, I knew the sinfulness of covetous or illicit desire only by the Law saying ‘ Thou shalt not covet.’ 8But the lurking Sin within me started into activity, and by the help of that express command, provoking to that which it prohibited, led me into all kinds of conscious and sinful covetousness. For without Law to bring it out Sin lies dead— inert and passive. 9And while sin was dead, I— my inner self— was alive, in happy unconsciousness, following my bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. But then came this Tenth Commandment; and with its coming Sin awoke to life, while I— sad and tragic contrast— died the living death of sin, precursor of eternal death. 10And the commandment which was given to point men the way to life, this very commandment was found in my case to lead to death. 11For Sin took advantage of it, and by the help of the commandment— at once confronting me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that which was wrong— it betrayed me, so that I fell; and the commandment was the weapon with which it slew me. 12The result is that the Law, as a whole, is holy, inasmuch as it proceeds from God: and each single commandment has the like character of holiness, justice, and beneficence. 13Am I then to say that a thing so excellent in itself to me proved fatal? Not for a moment. It was rather the demon Sin which wrought the mischief. And the reason why it was permitted to do so was that it might be shown in its true colours, convicted of being the pernicious thing that it is, by the fact that it made use of a good instrument, Law, to work out upon me the doom of death. For this reason Sin was permitted to have its way, in order that through its perverted use of the Divine commandment it might be seen in all its utter hideousness. 14The blame cannot attach to the Law. For we all know that the Law has its origin from the Spirit of God and derives its character from that Spirit, while I, poor mortal, am made of frail human flesh and blood, sold like any slave in the market into the servitude of Sin. 15It is not the Law, and not my own deliberate self, which is the cause of the evil; because my actions are executed blindly with no proper concurrence of the will. I purpose one way, I act another. I hate a thing, but do it. 16And by this very fact that I hate the thing that I do, my conscience bears testimony to the Law, and recognizes its excellence. 17So that the state of the case is this. It is not I, my true self, who put into act what is repugnant to me, but Sin which has possession of me. 18For I am aware that in me as I appear to the outer world— in this ‘ body that does me grievous wrong,’ there dwells (in any permanent and predominating shape) nothing that is good. The will indeed to do good is mine, and I can command it; but the performance I cannot command. 19For the actual thing that I do is not the good that I wish to do; but my moral agency appears in the evil that I wish to avoid. 20But if I thus do what I do not wish to do, then the active force in me, the agent that carries out the act, is not my true self (which is rather seen in the wish to do right), but the tyrant Sin which holds possession of me. 21I find therefore this law— if so it may be called— this stern necessity laid upon me from without, that much as I wish to do what is good, the evil lies at my door. 22For I am a divided being. In my innermost self, the thinking and reasoning part of me, I respond joyfully to the Law of God. 23But then I see a different Law dominating this bodily organism of mine, and making me do its behests. This other Law makes the field in arms against the Law of Reason and Conscience, and drags me away captive in the fetters of Sin, the Power which has such a fatal grip upon my body. 24Unhappy man that I am— torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue! This body from which proceed so many sinful impulses; this body which makes itself the instrument of so many acts of sin; this body which is thus dragging me down to death.— How shall I ever get free from it? What Deliverer will come and rescue me from its oppression? 25A Deliverer has come. And I can only thank God, approaching His Presence in humble gratitude, through Him to whom the deliverance is due— Jesus Messiah, our Lord. Without His intervention— so long as I am left to my own unaided self— the state that I have been describing may be briefly summarized. In this twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters: with my conscience I serve the Law of God; with my bodily organism the Law of Sin. 7. So far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion that it becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation between them. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which they give rise in the soul. It is evident that Marcion had this section, as Tertullian turns against him St. Paul’ s refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law, which Marcion ascribed to the Demiurge: Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis … Quid deo imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputare non audet? Atquin et accumulat: Lex sancta, et praeceptum eius iustum et bonum. Si taliter veneratur legem creatoris, quomodo ipsum destruat nescio. ὁνόμοςἁμαρτία . It had just been shown (ver. 5) that Sin makes use of the Law to effect the destruction of the sinner. Does it follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law? Do the two so overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description of Sin? St. Paul, like every pious Jew, repels this conclusion with horror. ἀλλά contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. On the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was. οὐκἔγνων . It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken hypothetically (for οὐκἂνἔγνων , ἄν omitted to give a greater sense of actuality, Kü hner, Gr. Gramm. ii. 176 f.) or whether it is simply temporal. Lips. Oltr. and others adopt the hypothetical sense both here and with οὐκᾔδειν below. Gif. Va. make both οὐκἔγνων and οὐκᾔδειν plain statement of fact. Mey.-W. Go. take οὐκἔγνων temporally, οὐκᾔδειν hypothetically. As the context is a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in place. τήντεγὰρἐπιθυμίαν . τεγάρ is best explained as = ‘ for also,’ ‘ for indeed’ (Gif. Win. § liii. p. 561 E. T.; otherwise Va.). The general proposition is proved by a concrete example. ἔγνων … ᾔδειν retain their proper meanings: ἔγνων , ‘ I learnt,’ implies more intimate experimental acquaintance; ᾔδειν is simple knowledge that there was such a thing as lust. ἐπιθυμήσεις . The Greek word has a wider sense than out ‘ covet’ ; it includes every kind of illicit desire. 8. ἀφορμὴνλαβοῦσα : ‘ getting a start,’ finding a point d’ appui, or, as we should say, ‘ something to take hold of.’ In a military sense ἀφορμή = ‘ a base of operations’ (Thuc. i. 90. 2, &c.). In a literary sense ἀφορμὴνλαβεῖν = ‘ to take a hint,’ ‘ adopt a suggestion’ ; cf. Eus. Ep. ad Carpianum ἐκτοῦπονήματοςτοῦπροειρημένουἀνδρὸςεἰληφὼςἀφορμάς . And so here in a moral sense: Sin exists, but apart from Law it has nothing to work upon, no means of producing guilt. Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. ἡἁμαρτία : see p. 145, sup. διὰτῆςἐντολῆς . The prep. διά and the position of the word show that it is better taken with κατειργάσατο than with ἀφορμ , λαβ . ἐντολή is the single commandment; νόμος the code as a whole. χωρὶςγὰρ … νεκρά . A standing thought which we have had before, 4:15; 5:13: cf. 3:20. 9. ἔζων (ἔζην B ; ἔζουν 17). St. Paul uses a vivid figurative expression, not of course with the full richness of meaning which he sometimes gives to it (1:17; 8:13, &c.). He is describing the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the consciousness of law has taken hold upon him; but he uses this experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before they are restrained by express command. The ‘ natural man’ flourishes; he does freely and without hesitation all that he has a mind to do; he puts forth all his vitality, unembarrassed by the checks and thwartings of conscience. It is the kind of life which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side; but this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy: the frieze of the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to trouble its enjoyment of to-day. See the general discussion below. ἀνέζησεν : ‘ sprang into life’ (T. K. Abbott). Sin at first is there, but dormant; not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief. 11. ἐξηπάτησέμε . The language is suggested by the description of the Fall (Genesis 3:13 LXX; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. In both cases the ‘ commandment’ — acknowledged only to be broken— is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disastrous and fatal end. 12. ὁμὲννόμος . The μέν expects a following δέ . St. Paul had probably intended to write ἡδὲἁμαρτίακατηργάσατοἐνἐμοὶτὸνθάνατον , or something of the kind; but he digresses to explain how a good Law can have evil consequences, and so he fails to complete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. On St. Paul’ s view of the nature and functions of the Law see below. It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn (Gesch. d. K. ii. 517) from the language of Tertullian (given above on ver. 7) that that writer had before him a corrupt Marcionitic text— not, Zahn thinks, actually due to Marcion, but corrupted since his time— ἡἐντολὴαὐτοῦδικαία for ἡἐντ . ἁγίακαὶδικαία . It is more probable that Tert. is reproducing his text rather freely: in De Pudic. 6 he leaves out καὶδικαία , lex quidem sancta est et praeceptum sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in Latin versions and writers). 13. Why was this strange perversion of so excellent a thing as the Law permitted? This very perversion served to aggravate the horror of Sin: not content with the evil which it is in itself it must needs turn to evil that which was at once Divine in its origin and beneficent in its purpose. To say this was to pronounce its condemnation: it was like giving it full scope, so that the whole world might see of what extremities Sin was capable. 14. The section which follows explains more fully by a psychological analysis how it is that the Law is broken and that Sin works such havoc. There is a germ of good in human nature, a genuine desire to do what is right, but this is overborne by the force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and passions. πνευματικός . The Law is ‘ spiritual,’ as the Manna and the Water from the Rock were ‘ spiritual’ (1 Corinthians 10:3, 1 Corinthians 10:4) in the sense of being ‘ Spirit-caused’ or ‘ Spirit-given,’ but with the further connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds to its origin. σάρκινος (σαρκικός א c L P al.) denotes simply the material of which human nature is composed, ‘ made of flesh and blood’ (1 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 3:3), and as such exposed to all the temptations which act through the body. There has been considerable controversy as to the bearing of the antithesis in St. Paul between the σάρξ and πνεῦμα . It has been maintained that this antithesis amounts to dualism, that St. Paul regards the σάρξ as inherently evil and the cause of evil, and that this dualistic conception is Greek or Hellenistic and not Jewish in its origin. So, but with differences among themselves, Holsten (1855, 1868), Rich. Schmidt (1870), Lü demann (1872), and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). [In the second edition of his Paulinismus (1890), Pfleiderer refers so much of St. Paul’ s teaching on this head as seems to go beyond the O. T. not to Hellenism, but to the later Jewish doctrine of the Fall, much as it has been expounded above, p. 136 ff. In this we need not greatly differ from him.] The most elaborate reply was that of H. H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist (Gotha, 1878), which was made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. W. P. Dickson, St. Paul’ s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow, 1883. Reference may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. Gifford (Romans, pp. 48-52). The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. Its result is summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words: ‘ The Pauline anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base; the elements in it which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be denied (sind einfach zu bestreiten).’ The points peculiar to St. Paul, according to Lipsius, are the sharper contrast between the Divine πνεῦμα and the human ψυχή , and the reading of a more ethical sense into σάρξ , which was originally physical, so that in Galatians 5:19 ff., Romans 8:4 ff. the σάρξ becomes a principle directly at war with the πνεῦμα . In the present passage (Romans 7:14-25) the opposing principle is ἁμαρτία , and the σάρξ is only the material medium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. We may add that this is St. Paul’ s essential view, of which all else is but the variant expression. 15. κατεργάζομαι = perficio, perpetro, ‘ to carry into effect,’ ‘ put into execution’ : πράσσω = ago, to act as a moral and responsible being: ποιῶ = facio,to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character, and simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notes on ch. 1:32: 2:9). Of course the specific sense may not be always marked by the context, but here it is well borne out throughout. For a fuller account of the distinction see Schmidt, Lat. u. Gr. Synonymik, p. 294 ff. οὐγινώσκω appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of will and motive, the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the promptings of the latter. The man acts, so to speak, blindly: he is not a fully conscious agent: a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out of his hands. ὃθέλω . The exact distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι has been much disputed, and is difficult to mark. On the whole it seems that, especially in N. T. usage, βούλομαι lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose, deliberation, θέλω on the more emotional aspect of will: in this context it is evidently something short of the final act of volition, and practically = ‘ wish,’ ‘ desire.’ See especially the full and excellent note in Grm.-Thay. 17. νυνὶδέ : ‘ as it is,’ ‘ as the case really lies’ ; the contrast is logical, not temporal. ἡοἰκοῦσαἐνἐμοὶἁμαρτία . [Read ἐνοικοῦσα with א B, Method. (ap. Phot. cod., non autem ap. Epiph.)] This indwelling Sin corresponds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter: a further proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective existence. 18. ἐνἐμοί , τοῦτ ʼ ἓστιν , κ .τ .λ .The part of the man in which Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self, his conscience, but his lower self, the ‘ flesh,’ which, if not itself evil, is too easily made the instrument of evil. παράκειταίμοι : ‘ lies to my hand,’ ‘ within my reach.’ οὐ א A B C 47 67** al., Edd.: οὐχεὑρίσκω D E F G K L P &c. 20. ὃοὐθέλω B C D E F G al., WH. RV.: ὃοὐθέλωἔγω א A K L P &c., Tisch. WH. marg. 21. εὑρίσκωἄρατὸννόμον : ‘ I find then this rule,’ ‘ this constraining principle,’ hardly ‘ this constantly recurring experience,’ which would be too modern. The νόμος here mentioned is akin to the ἕτεροννόμον of ver. 23. It is not merely the observed fact that the will to do good is forestalled by evil, but the coercion of the will that is thus exercised. Lips. seems to be nearest to the mark, das Gesetz d. h. die objectiv mir auferlegte Nothwendigkeit. Many commentators, from Chrysostom onwards, have tried to make τὸννόμον = the Mosaic Law: but either (i) they read into the passage more than the context will allow; or (ii) they give to the sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable. The best attempt in this direction is prob. that of Va. who translates, ‘ I find then with regard to the Law, that to me who would fain do that which is good, to me (I say) that which is evil is present.’ He supposes a double break in the construction: (1) τὸννόμον put as if the sentence had been intended to run ‘ I find then the Law— when I wish to do good— powerless to help me’ ; and (2) ἐμοί repeated for the sake of clearness. It is apparently in a similar sense that Dr. T. K. Abbott proposes as an alternative rendering (the first being as above), ‘ With respect to the law, I find,’ &c. But the anacoluthon after τὸννόμον seems too great even for dictation to an amanuensis. Other expedients like those of Mey. (not Mey.-W.) Fri. Ew. are still more impossible. See esp. Gif. Additional Note, p. 145. 22. συνήδομαιτῷνόμῳτοῦΘεοῦ : what it approves, I gladly and cordially approve. κατὰτὸνἔσωἄνθρωπον . St. Paul, as we have seen (on 6:6), makes great use of this phrase ἄνθρωπος , which goes back as far as Plato. Now he contrasts the ‘ old’ with the ‘ new man’ ; now he contrasts the ‘ outer man,’ or the body (ὁἔξωἄνθρωπος 2 Corinthians 4:16), with the ‘ inner man,’ the conscience or reason (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16). 23. ἕτεροννόμον : ‘ a different law’ (for the distinction between ἕτερος , ‘ different,’ and ἅλλος , ‘ another,’ ‘ a second,’ see the commentators on Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7). There are two Imperatives within the man: one, that of conscience; the other, that proceeding from the action of Sin upon the body. One of these Imperatives is the moral law, ‘ Thou shalt’ and ‘ Thou shalt not’ ; the other is the violent impulse of passion. τῷνόμῳτοῦνοόςμου . For νοῦς see on 1:28: it is the rational part of conscience, the faculty which decides between right and wrong: strictly speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather than to that of intercourse with God, or religion; but it may be associated with and brought under the influence of the πνεῦμα (Ephesians 4:23 ἀνανεοῦσθαιτῷπνεύματιτοῦνοός : cf. Romans 12:2), just as on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Romans 1:28). 24. ταλαίπωροςἐγὼἄνθρωπος . A heart-rending cry, from the depths of despair. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul’ s own experience: as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee below it— self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper, the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the compass of an average will. But St. Paul was not an ordinary Pharisee. He dealt too honestly with himself, so that sooner or later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way: and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on those old days ‘ of which he was now ashamed.’ So that, what with his knowledge of himself, and what with his sympathetic penetration into the hearts of others, he had doubtless materials enough for the picture which he has drawn here with such extraordinary power. He has sat for his own likeness; but there are ideal traits in the picture as well. ἐκτοῦσώματοςτοῦθανάτουτούτου . In construction τούτου might go with σώματος : but it is far better to take it in the more natural connexion with θανάτου ; ‘ the body of this death’ which already has me in its clutches. Sin and death are inseparable: as the body involves me in sin it also involves me in mortality; physical death to be followed by eternal, the death of the body by the death of the soul. 25. ἄραοὖνκ .τ .λ . A terse compressed summary of the previous paragraph, vv. 7-24, describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the intervention of Christ. The expression is that which comes from deep feeling. The particular phrases hardly seem to need further explanation. εὐχαριστῶτῷΘεῷ . The true reading is probably χάριςτῷΘεῷ . The evidence stands thus. χάριςτῷΘεῷ B, Sah., Orig. semel Hieron. semel. χάριςδὲτῷΘεῷ א a C2 (de C* non liquet) minusc. aliq., Boh. Arm., Cyr.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc. ἡχάριςτοῦΘεοῦ D E 38, d e Vulg., Orig.-lat. bis Hieron. semel Ambrstr. ἡχάριςτοῦΚυρίου F G, f g, cf. Iren.-lat. εὐχαριστῶτῷΘεῷ א * A K L P &c., Syrr. Goth., Orig. bis Chrys. Theodrt. al. [εὐχαριστῶΘεῷ Method. ap. Epiph. cod., sed χάριςτῷΘεῷ vel χάριςδὲτῷΘεῷ Epiph. edd. pr.; vid. Bonwetsch, Methodius von Olympus, i. 204. It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest. The reading of the mass of MSS. would be derived from it (not at once but by successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters, τογτογ [εγ ]χαριχ [τω ]τωθεω . The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. The other possibility would be that εὐχαριστῶτῷΘεῷ had got reduced to χάριςτῷΘεῷ by successive dropping of letters. But this must have taken place very early. It is also conceivable that χάριςδέ preceded χάρις only. The Inward Conflict Two subjects for discussion are raised, or are commonly treated as if they were raised, by this section. (1) Is the experience described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it, or is it not, the experience of St. Paul himself? 1 . Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the passage refers to the unregenerate man. (i) Appeal is made to such expressions as πεπραμένοςὑπὸτὴνἁμαρτίαν ver. 14, κατεργάζομαι [τὸκακόν ] vv. 19, 20, ταλαίπωροςἐγὼἄνθρωπος ver. 24. It is argued that language like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. (ii) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for the opposite conclusion, it is urged that parallels to them may be quoted from Pagan literature, e. g. the video meliora of Ovid and many other like sayings in Euripides, Xenophon, Seneca, Epictetus (see Dr. T*. K. Abbott on ver. 15 of this chapter). (iii) The use of the present tense is explained as dramatic. The Apostle throws himself back into the time which he is describing. Another group of writers, Methodius (ob. 310 a.d.), Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the Calvinistic side, refer the passage rather to the regenerate. (i) An opposite set of expressions is quoted, μισῶ [τὸκακόν ] ver. 15, θέλωποιείντὸκαλόν ver. 21, συνήδομαιτῷνόμῳ ver. 22. It is said that these are inconsistent with the ἀπηλλοτριωμένοικαὶἐχθροί of Colossians 1:21 and with descriptions like that of Rom 8:7, Romans 8:8. (ii) Stress is laid on the present tenses: and in proof that these imply a present experience, reference is made to passages like 1 Corinthians 9:27 ὑπωπιάζωμουτὸσῶμακαὶδουλαγωγῶ . That even the regenerate may have this mixed experience is thought to be proved, e.g. by Galatians 5:17. Clearly there is a double strain of language. The state of things described is certainly a conflict in which opposite forces are struggling for the mastery. Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unregenerate man seems to push us back upon the further question, What we mean by ‘ regenerate.’ The word is used in a higher and a lower sense. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized Christians. In that sense there can be little doubt that the experience described may fairly come within it. But on the other hand, the higher stages of the spiritual life seem to be really excluded. The sigh of relief in ver. 25 marks a dividing line between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is practically ended. This shows that the present tenses are in any case not to be taken too literally. Three steps appear to be distinguished, (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver. 9), happy, but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness; (ii) then the sharp collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity; (iii) the end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this collision by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ, of which more will be said in the next chapter. The state there described is that of the truly and fully regenerate; the prolonged struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as inter regenerandum (Gif. after Dean Jackson). Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so technical a term as ‘ regeneration’ into a context from which it is wholly absent. St. Paul, it is true, regarded Christianity as operating a change in man. But here, whether the moment described is before or after the embracing of Christianity, in any case abstraction is made of all that is Christian. Law and the soul are brought face to face with each other, and there is nothing between them. Not until we come to ver. 25 is there a single expression used which belongs to Christianity. And the use of it marks that the conflict is ended. (2) As to the further question whether St. Paul is speaking of himself or of ‘ some other man’ we observe that the crisis which is described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly known as his ‘ Conversion.’ Here the crisis is moral; there it was in the first instance intellectual, turning upon the acceptance of the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. The decisive point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ through His Spirit, but it is at least not an intellectual conviction, such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. On the other hand, the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photograph of any one stage in the Apostle’ s career, but it is a constructive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements supplied to him by self-introspection. We may well believe that the regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the conviction of Sin. The incubus of the Law he had felt most keenly when he was a ‘ Pharisee of the Pharisees.’ Without putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall probably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to the period before his Conversion. It was then that the powerlessness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought home to him. And all his experience, at whatever date, of the struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered together and concentrated in a single portraiture. It would obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like this too rigidly. The process described comes to different men at different times and in different degrees; to one early, to another later; in one man it would lead up to Christianity, in another it might follow it; in one it would be quick and sudden, in another the slow growth of years. We cannot lay down any rule. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to say with the Apostle, ‘ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a sentence what he is about to expand into a chapter. The break occurs at a very suitable place: ch. 8 is the true conclusion to ch. 7. St. Paul’ s View of the Law It was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. Paul must have seemed most revolutionary to his countrymen. And yet it would be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred and to which he himself was still more completely committed by his early education as a Pharisee (Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:5 f.). This old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Romans 9:4 (cf. 3:2; 2:25, &c.). And even where, as in the section before us, he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness of the Law to restrain human passion the Apostle still lays down expressly that the Law itself is ‘ holy and righteous and good’ ; and a little lower down (ver. 14) he gives it the epithet ‘ spiritual,’ which is equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in facing facts that St. Paul ever brought himself to give up his belief in the sufficiency of the Law; and there is no greater proof of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which, when once his thoughts were turned into this channel, he followed out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. We can hardly doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity. The process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle recognized. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles which would be endured long before they led to a complete shifting of belief, and which would only lead to it then because a new and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness of St. Paul’ s conversion was due to the tenacity with which he held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to conclusions which were merely negative. It was not till a whole group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his allegiance, and when he had done so came by degrees to see the true place of the Law in the Divine economy. From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly. The doubts began, as we have seen, in psychological experience. With the best will in the world St. Paul had found that really to keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. However much it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew him another. And these counter influences proved the stronger of the two. The Law itself was cold, inert, passive. It pointed severely to the path of right and duty, but there its function ended; it gave no help towards the performance of that which it required. Nay, by a certain strange perversity in human nature, it seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. The very fact that a thing was forbidden seemed to make its attractions all the greater (Romans 7:8). And so the last state was worse than the first. The one sentence in which St. Paul sums up his experience of Law is διὰνόμουἐπίγνωσιςἁμαρτίας (Romans 3:20). Its effect therefore was only to increase the condemnation: it multiplied sin (Romans 5:20); it worked wrath (Romans 4:15); it brought mankind under a curse (Galatians 3:10). And this was equally true of the individual and of the race; the better and fuller the law the more glaring was the contrast to the practice of those who lived under it. The Jews were at the head of all mankind in their privileges, but morally they were not much better than the Gentiles. In the course of his travels St. Paul was led to visit a number of the scattered colonies of Jews, and when he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them a biting irony (Romans 2:17-29). The truth must be acknowledged; as a system, Law of whatever kind had failed. The breakdown of the Jewish Law was most complete just because that law was the best. It stood out in history as a monument, revealing the right and condemning the wrong, heaping up the pile of human guilt, and nothing more. On a large scale for the race, as on a small scale for the individual, the same verdict held, διὰνόμουἐπίγνωσιςἁμαρτίας . Clearly the fault of all this was not with the Law. The fault lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Romans 8:3). The Law, as a code of commandments, did all that it was intended to do. But it needed to be supplemented. And it was just this supplementing which Christianity brought, and by bringing it set the Law in its true light and in its right place in the evolution of the Divine plan. St. Paul sees spread before him the whole expanse of history. The dividing line across it is the Coming of the Messiah. All previous to that is a period of Law— first of imperfect law, such law as was supplied by natural religion and conscience; and then of relatively perfect law, the law given by God from Sinai. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law increased the sum of human happiness. Rather the contrary. In the infancy of the world, as in the infancy of the individual, there was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong; impulse was followed wherever it led; the primrose path of enjoyment had no dark shadow cast over it. Law was this dark shadow. In proportion as it became stricter, it deepened the gloom. If law had been kept, or where law was kept, it brought with it a new kind of happiness; but to a serious spirit like St. Paul’ s it seemed as if the law was never kept— never satisfactorily kept— at all. There was a Rabbinical commonplace, a stern rule of self-judgement, which was fatal to peace of mind: ‘ Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all’ (James 2:10; cf. Galatians 3:16; Romans 10:5). Any true happiness therefore, any true relief, must be sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of ch. 7 marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity; ‘ There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ Taken thus in connexion with that new order of things into which it was to pass and empty itself, the old order of Law had at last its difficulties cleared away. It remained as a stage of salutary and necessary discipline. All God’ s ways are not bright upon the surface. But the very clouds which He draws over the heavens will break in blessings; and break just at that moment when their darkness is felt to be most oppressive. St. Paul himself saw the gloomy period of law through to its end (τέλοςγὰρνόμουΧριστὸςεἰςδικαιοσύνηνπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι Romans 10:4); and his own pages reflect, better than any other, the new hopes and energies by which it was succeeded. Gif. Gifford. Lips. Lipsius. &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Chrys. Chrysostom. Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. Tert. Tertullian. Vulg. Vulgate. Wic. Wiclif. Rhem. Rheims (or Douay). Tyn. Tyndale. Genev. Geneva. AV. Authorized Version. RV. Revised Version. Oltr. Oltramare. Tisch. Tischendorf. D Cod. Claromontanus E Cod. Sangermanensis F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus codd. codices. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen Va. Vaughan. Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa. Go. Godet. Win. Winer’ s Grammar. Eus. Eusebius. B Cod. Vaticanus א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c L Cod. Angelicus P Cod. Porphyrianus al. alii, alibi. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus Epiph. Epiphanius. A Cod. Alexandrinus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus K Cod. Mosquensis WH. Westcott and Hort. Mey. Meyer. Fri. Fritzsche (C. F. A.). Sah. Sahidic. Orig. Origen. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector a Boh. Bohairic. Arm. Armenian. Cyr.-Alex. Cyril of Alexandria. d Latin version of D e Latin version of E f Latin version of F g Latin version of G Syrr. Syriac. Goth. Gothic. Theodrt. Theodoret. Method. Methodius. LIFE IN THE SPIRIT. THE FRUITS OF THE 8:1-4. The result of Christ’ s interposition is to dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human heart, and to instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ. Thus what the Law of Moses tried to do but failed, the Incarnation has accomplished. 1This being so, no verdict of ‘ Guilty’ goes forth any longer against the Christian. He lives in closest union with Christ. 2The Spirit of Christ, the medium of that union, with all its life-giving energies, enters and issues its laws from his heart, dispossessing the old usurper Sin, putting an end to its authority and to the fatal results which it brought with it. 3For where the old system failed, the new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses could not get rid of Sin. The weak place in its action was that our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. But now God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to take upon Him that same human nature with all its attributes except sin: in that nature He died to free us from sin: and this Death of His carried with it a verdict of condemnation against Sin and of acquittal for its victims; 4so that from henceforth what the Law lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our lives not according to the appetites and passions of sense, but at the dictates of the Spirit. 1 ff. This chapter is, as we have seen, an expansion of χάριςτῷΘεῷδιὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν in the last verse of ch. 7. It describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its beginning to its end— that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere (Colossians 3:3) as ‘ hid with Christ in God.’ It works gradually up through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of vv. 1-17 to the more impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. 18-30, and thence to the magnificent climax of vv. 31-39. There is evidence that Marcion retained vv. 1-11 of this chapter, probably with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us (we do not know which of the two competing readings he had in ver. 10). Tertullian leaps from 8:11 to 10:2, implying that much was cut out, but we cannot determine how much. 1. κατάκριμα . One of the formulae of Justification: κατάκρισις and κατάκριμα are correlative to δικαίωσις , δικαίωμα ; both sets of phrases being properly forensic. Here, however, the phrase τοῖςἐνΧ . Ἰ . which follows shows that the initial stage in the Christian career, which is in the strictest sense the stage of Justification, has been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has succeeded to it. In this stage too there is the same freedom from condemnation, secured by a process which is explained more fully in ver. 3 (cf. 6:7-10). The κατάκρισις which used to fall upon the sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. μὴκατὰσάρκαπεριπατοῦσιν , ἀλλὰκατὰπνεῦμα . An interpolation introduced (from ver. 4) at two steps: the first clause μὴκατὰσάρκαπεριπατοῦσιν in A Db 137, f m Vulg. Pesh. Goth. Arm., Bas. Chrys.; the second clause ἀλλὰκατὰπνεῦμα in the mass of later authorities א c Dc E K L P&c.; the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, the Latin Version of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attributed to him, Athanasius and others omit both. 2. ὁνόμοςτοῦΠνεύματος = the authority exercised by the Spirit We have had the same somewhat free use of νόμος in the last chapter, esp. in ver. 23 ὁνόμοςτοῦνοός , ὁνόμοςτῆςἁμαρτίας : it is no longer a ‘ code’ but an authority producing regulated action such as would be produced by a code. τοῦΠνεύματοςτῆςζωῆς . The gen. expresses the ‘ effect wrought’ (Gif.), but it also expresses more: the Spirit brings life because it essentially is life. ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ goes with ἠλευθέρωσε : the authority of the Spirit operating through the union with Christ, freed me, &c. For the phrase itself see on ch. 6:11 ἠλευθέρωσέμε . A small group of important authorities (א B F G m Pesh., Tert. 1/2 vel potius 2/2 Chrys. codd.) has ἠλευθέρωσένσε . The combination of א B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading must be extremely early, going back to the time before the Western text diverged from the main body. Still it can hardly be right, as the second person is nowhere suggested in the context, and it is more probable that σε is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of ἠλευθέρωσε . Dr. Hort suggests the omission of both pronouns (ἡμᾶς also being found), and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. of Arm. (to which Dr. Hort would add ‘ perhaps’ the commentary of Origen as represented by Rufinus, but this is not certain), it was a very general tendency among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. We do not expect a return to first pers. sing. after τοῖςἐνΧ . Ἰ ., and the scanty evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled, e.g. by that for the omission of εὑρηκέναι in 4:1, for εἴγε in 5:6, or for χάριςτῷΘεῷ in 7:25. But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing με in brackets. ἀπὸτοῦνόμουτῆςἁμαρτίαςκαὶτοῦθανάτου = the authority exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on 7:23, and on ὁνόμ . τ . πνεύμ . above. 3. τὸγὰρἀδύνατοντοῦνόμου . Two questions arise as to these words. (1) What is their construction? The common view, adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. translates, ‘ the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,’ &c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in apposition not as nom. but as accus. A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his ‘ Digest of Platonic Idioms’ (The Apology of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down two propositions about constructions like this: ‘ (i) These Noun-Phrases and Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender makes this difficult to prove; but such instances as are decisive afford an analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C ἐπὶτούτοιςτὸνκολοφῶνα , ἀναγκάζωπροσβιβάζωνκ .τ .λ . Cf. Soph. O. T. 603 καὶτῶνδ ʼ ἔλεγχον … πεύθου , and the Adverbs ἀρχήν , ἀκμήν , τὴνπρώτην , &c. (ii) They represent, by Apposition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that they are Cognate Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would be inadequate to the facts. For (1) in most of the instances the sense points out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence, or portion of a sentence, as a whole; (2) in many of them, not the internal force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the Subject.’ [Examples follow, but that from Theaet. given above is as clear as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards τὸἀδύν . as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate accus. which is not expressed: ‘ The impossible thing of the Law … God [effected; that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.’ It is true that an apt parallel is quoted from 2 Corinthians 6:13 τὴνδὲαὐτὴνἀντιμισθίανπλατύνθητεκαὶὑμεῖς : but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument that if τὸἀδύν . had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of the sentence, like τὴνλογικὴνλατρείανὑμῶν in Romans 12:1, appears to be refuted by τὸνκολοφῶνα in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. § 32:7, p. 290 E. T. while recognizing the accus. use (§ lix.9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to take τὸἀδύν . as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c. (2) Is τὸἀδύν . active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if ἀδύν . were passive it should be followed by τῷνόμῳ not τοῦνόμου . Tertullian (De Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the gen., quod invalidum erat legis. But on the other hand if not Origen himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive rendering, and treats τοῦνόμου as practically equivalent to τῷνόμῳ : quod impossibile erat legi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses impossibilis in an active sense in his comment; and the Greek of Origen, as given in Cramer’ s Catena, p. 125, appears to make τὸἀδύν . active: ὥσπεργὰρἡἀρετὴἰδίᾳφύσειἰσχυρά , οὕτωκαὶἡκακίακαὶτὰἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςἀσθενῆκαὶἀδύνατα … τοῦτοιούτουνόμουἡφύσιςἀδύνατόςἐστι . Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the sentence): τὸἀδύνατον , τουτέστιτὸἀσθενοῦν . Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legis. The gen. might mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law marked ‘ impossible,’ a portion of the field which it could not control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more in accordance with the Biblical use of ἀδύν . and also to give a somewhat easier construction: if τὸἀδύν . is active it is not quite a simple case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort of nom. absolute (‘ The impotence of the Law being this that,’ &c., Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of taking the words, and that on a point— the natural interpretation of language— where ancient authority is especially valuable. An induction from the use of LXX and N. T. would seem to show that ἀδύνατος masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two times [3 vv. 11. in LXX, Wisd. 17:14 τὴνἀδύνατονὄντωςνύκτακαὶἐξἀδυνάτουᾅδουμυχῶνἐπελθοῦσαν , being alone somewhat ambiguous and peculiar), while ἀδύν . neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven in N. T.). It is true that the exact phrase τὸἀδύνατον does not occur, but in Luke 18:27 we have τὰἀδύναταπαρὰἀνθρώποιςδυνατάἐστιπαρὰτῷΘεῷ . ἐνᾧ : not ‘ because’ (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ‘ in which’ or ‘ wherein,’ defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) of the Law consisted. For ἠσθένειδιὰτῆςσαρκός comp. 7:22, 23. The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is tempted and falls, and so the Law’ s good counsels come to nothing. τὸνἑαυτοῦυἱόν . The emphatic ἑαυτοῦ brings out the community of nature between the Father and the Son: cf. τοῦἰδίουυἱοῦ ver. 32; τοῦυἱοῦτῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ Colossians 1:13. ἐνὁμοιώματισαρκὸςἁμαρτίας : the flesh of Christ is ‘ like’ ours inasmuch as it is flesh; ‘ like,’ and only ‘ like,’ because it is not sinful: ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati (Orig.-lat.). Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was ‘ sinful flesh,’ i.e. capable of sinning; but they are decisively refuted by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful flesh, though it is His Flesh— His Incarnation— which brought Him into contact with Sin. καὶπερὶἁμαρτίας This phrase is constantly used in the O.T. for the ‘ sin-offering’ ; so ‘ more than fifty times in the Book of Leviticus alone’ (Va.); and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.-lat. Quod hostia pro peccato factus est Christus, et oblatus sit pro purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testantur … Per hanc ergo hostiam carnis suae, quae dicitur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in carne, &c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev_4. The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase περὶἁμαρτ . here specially limited to the sense of ‘ sin-offering.’ It includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin. κατέκρινετὴνἁμαρτίανἐντῇσαρκί . The key to this difficult clause is supplied by ch. 6:7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through that nature. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. Neither can it lay any claim against the believer; for the believer also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subsequent immunity of Christians is to be referred. The parallel passage, 6:6-11, shows that this summary condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not in His Life; so that κατέκρινε cannot be adequately explained either by the proof which Christ’ s Incarnation gave that human nature might be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man’ s sin. In Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42 (‘ the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,’ &c.) κατακρίνειν has this sense of ‘ condemn by contrast,’ but there is a greater fulness of meaning here. The ancients rather miss the mark in their comments on this passage. Thus Orig.-lat. damnavit peccatum, hoc est, fugavit peccatum et abstulit : but it does not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based on Chrys., who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it of injustice in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinful. Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist . This is at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death upon the Cross and the Resurrection. ἐντῇσαρκί goes with κατέκρινε . The Death of Christ has the efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh: by means of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (6:10; Hebrews 7:16; Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18); but through the mystical union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours (Lips.). 4. τὸδικαίωμα : ‘ the justifying,’ Wic., ‘ the justification,’ Rhem. after Vulg. iustificatio; Tyn. is better, ‘ the rightewesnes requyred of (i.e. by) the lawe.’ We have already seen that the proper sense of δικαίωμα is ‘ that which is laid down as right,’ ‘ that which has the force of right’ : hence it = here the statutes of the Law, as righteous statutes. Comp. on 1:32; 2:26. It is not clear how Chrys. ( = Euthym.-Zig.) gets for δικαίωμα the sense τὸτέλος , ὁσκοπός , τὸκατόρθωμα . τοῖςμὴκατὰσάρκαπεριπατοῦσιν : ‘ those who walk by the rule of the flesh,’ whose guiding principle is the flesh (and its gratification). The antithesis of Flesh and Spirit is the subject of the next section. THE LIFE OF THE FLESH AND THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT 8:5-11. Compare the two states. The life of self-indulgence involves the breach of God’ s law, hostility to Him, and death. Submission to the Spirit brings with it true life and the sense of reconciliation. You therefore, if you are sincere Christians, have in the presence of the Spirit a sure pledge of immortality. 5These two modes of life are directly opposed to one another. If any man gives way to the gratifications of sense, then these and nothing else occupy his thoughts and determine the bent of his character. And on the other hand, those who let the Holy Spirit guide them fix their thoughts and affections on things spiritual. 6They are opposed in their nature; they are opposed also in their consequences. For the consequence of having one’ s bent towards the things of the flesh is death— both of soul and body, both here and hereafter. Just as to surrender one’ s thoughts and motives to the Spirit brings with it a quickened vitality through the whole man, and a tranquillizing sense of reconciliation with God. 7The gratifying of the flesh can lead only to death, because it implies hostility to God. It is impossible for one who indulges the flesh at the same time to obey the law of God. 8And those who are under the influence of the flesh cannot please God. 9But you, as Christians, are no longer under the influence of the flesh. You are rather under that of the Spirit, if the Spirit of God (which, be it remembered, is the medium of personal contact with God and Christ) is really in abiding communion with you. 10But if Christ, through His Spirit, thus keeps touch with your souls, then mark how glorious is your condition. Your body it is true is doomed to death, because it is tainted with sin; but your spirit— the highest part of you— has life infused into it because of its new state of righteousness to which life is so nearly allied. 11In possessing the Spirit you have a guarantee of future resurrection. It links you to Him whom God raised from the dead. And so even these perishable human bodies of yours, though they die first, God will restore to life, through the operation of (or, having regard to) that Holy Spirit by whom they are animated. 5. φρονοῦσιν : ‘ set their minds, or their hearts upon.’ φρονεῖν denotes the whole action of the φρήν , i.e. of the affections and will as well as of the reason; cf. Matthew 16:23 οὐφρονεῖςτὰτοῦΘεοῦ , ἀλλὰτὰτῶνἀνθρώπων : Romans 12:16; Philippians 3:19; Colossians 3:2, &c. 6. φρόνημα : the content of φρονεῖν , the general bent of thought and motive. Here, as elsewhere in these chapters, σάρξ is that side of human nature on which it is morally weak, the side on which man’ s physical organism leads him into sin. θάνατος . Not merely is the φρόνηματῆςσαρκός death in effect, inasmuch as it has death for its goal, but it is also a present death, inasmuch as its present condition contains the seeds which by their own inherent force will develop into the death both of body and soul. ζωή . In contrast with the state of things just described, where the whole bent of the mind is towards the things of the Spirit, not only is there ‘ life’ in the sense that a career so ordered will issue in life; it has already in itself the germs of life. As the Spirit itself is in Its essence living, so does It impart that which must live. For a striking presentation of the Biblical doctrine of Life see Hort, Hulsean Lectures, pp. 98 ff., 189 ff. The following may be quoted: ‘ The sense of life which Israel enjoyed was, however, best expressed in the choice of the name “ life” as a designation of that higher communion with God which grew forth in due time as the fruit of obedience and faith. The psalmist or wise man or prophet, whose heart had sought the face of the Lord, was conscious of a second or divine life, of which the first or natural life was at once the image and the foundation; a life not imprisoned in some secret recess of his soul, but filling his whole self, and overflowing upon the earth around him’ (p. 98). Add St. Paul’ s doctrine of the indwelling Spirit, and the intensity of his language becomes intelligible. εἰρήνη = as we have seen not only (i) the state of reconciliation with God, but (ii) the sense of that reconciliation which diffuses a feeling of harmony and tranquillity over the whole man. 7. This verse assigns the reason why the ‘ mind of the flesh is death,’ at the same time bringing out the further contrast between the mind of the flesh and that of the Spirit suggested by the description of the latter as not only ‘ life’ but ‘ peace.’ The mind of the flesh is the opposite of peace; it involves hostility to God, declared by disobedience to His Law. This disobedience is the natural and inevitable consequence of giving way to the flesh. 8. οἱδέ : not as AV. ‘ so then,’ as if it marked a consequence or conclusion from ver. 7, but ‘ And’ : ver. 8 merely repeats the substance of ver. 7 in a slightly different form, no longer abstract but personal. The way is thus paved for a more direct application to the readers. 9. ἐνσαρκί , … ἐνπνεύματι . Observe how the thought mounts gradually upwards. εἶναιἐνσαρκί = ‘ to be under the domination of [the] flesh’ ; corresponding to this εἶναιἐνπνεύματι = ‘ to be under the domination of [the] spirit,’ i.e. in the first instance, the human spirit. Just as in the one case the man takes his whole bent and bias from the lower part of his nature, so in the other case he takes it from the highest part of his nature. But that highest part, the πνεῦμα , is what it is by virtue of its affinity to God. It is essentially that part of the man which holds communion with God: so that the Apostle is naturally led to think of the Divine influences which act upon the πνεῦμα . He rises almost imperceptibly through the πνεῦμα of man to the Πνεῦμα of God. From thinking of the way in which the πνεῦμα in its best moods acts upon the character he passes on to that influence from without which keeps it in its best moods. This is what he means when he says εἴπερΠνεῦμαΘεοῦοἰκεῖἐνὑμῖν . οἰκεῖνἐν denotes a settled permanent penetrative influence. Such an influence, from the Spirit of God, St. Paul assumes to be inseparable from the higher life of the Christian. The way in which ένσαρκί is opposed to ἐνπνεύματι , and further the way in which ἐνπνεύματι passes from the spirit of man to the Spirit of God, shows that we must not press the local significance of the preposition too closely. We must not interpret any of the varied expressions which the Apostle uses in such a sense as to infringe upon the distinctness of the human and Divine personalities. The one thing which is characteristic of personality is distinctness from all other personalities; and this must hold good even of the relation of man to God. The very ease with which St. Paul changes and inverts his metaphors shows that the Divine immanence with him nowhere means Buddhistic or Pantheistic absorption. We must be careful to keep clear of this, but short of it we may use the language of closest intimacy. All that friend can possibly receive from friend we may believe that man is capable of receiving from God. See the note on ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ in 6:11; and for the antithesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα the small print note on 7:14. εἰδέτις . A characteristic delicacy of expression: when he is speaking on the positive side St. Paul assumes that his readers have the Spirit, but when he is speaking on the negative side he will not say bluntly ‘ if you have not the Spirit,’ but he at once throws his sentence into a vague and general force, ‘ if any one has not,’ &c. There are some good remarks on the grammar of the conditional clauses in this verse and in vv. 10, 25, in Burton, M. and T. § § 469, 242, 261. οὐκἔστιναὐτοῦ : he is no true Christian. This amounts to saying that all Christians ‘ have the Spirit’ in greater or less degree. 10. εἰδὲΧριστός . It will be observed that St. Paul uses the phrases ΠνεῦμαΘεοῦ , ΠνεῦμαΧριστοῦ , and Χριστός in these two verses as practically interchangeable. On the significance of this in its bearing upon the relation of the Divine Persons see below. τὸμὲνσῶμανεκρὸνδι ʼ ἁμαρτίαν . St. Paul is putting forward first the negative and then the positive consequences of the indwelling of Christ, or the Spirit of Christ, in the soul. But what is the meaning of ‘ the body is dead because of sin?’ Of many ways of taking the words, the most important seem to be these: (i) ‘ the body is dead imputative, in baptism (6:2 ff.), as a consequence of sin which made this implication of the body in the Death of Christ necessary’ (Lips.). But in the next verse, to which this clearly points forward, the stress lies not on death imputed but on physical death. (ii) ‘ The body is dead mystice, as no longer the instrument of sin (sans é nergie productrice des actes charnels), because of sin— to which it led’ (Oltr.). This is open to the same objection as the last, with the addition that it does not give a satisfactory explanation of δι ʼ ἁμαρτίαν . (iii) It remains to take νεκρόν in the plain sense of ‘ physical death,’ and to go back for δι ʼ ἁμαρτίαν not to 6:2 ff. but to 5:12 ff., so that it would be the sin of Adam and his descendants (Aug. Gif. Go.) perpetuated to the end of time. Oltr. objects that νὲκρόν in this case ought to be θνητόν , but the use of νεκρόν gives a more vivid and pointed contrast to ζωή — ‘ a dead thing.’ τὸδὲπνεῦμαζωὴδιὰδικαιοσύνην . Clearly the πνεῦμα here meant is the human πνεῦμα which has the properties of life infused into it by the presence of the Divine πνεῦμα . ζωή is to be taken in a wide sense, but with especial stress on the future eternal life. διὰδικαιοσύνην is also to be taken in a wide sense: it includes all the senses in which righteousness is brought home to man, first imputed, then imparted, then practised. 11. St. Paul is fond of arguing from the Resurrection of Christ to the resurrection of the Christian (see p. 117 sup.). Christ is the ἀπαρχή (1 Corinthians 15:20, 1 Corinthians 15:23: the same power which raised Him will raise us (1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14); Philippians 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:14). But nowhere is the argument given in so full and complete a form as here. The link which connects the believer with Christ, and makes him participate in Christ’ s resurrection, is the possession of His Spirit . διὰτοῦἐνοικοῦντοςαὐτοῦΠνεύματος . The authorities for the two readings, the gen. as above and the acc. διὰτὸἐνοικοῦναὐτοῦΠνεῦμα , seem at first sight very evenly divided. For gen. we have a long line of authorities headed by א A C, Clem.-Alex. For acc. we have a still longer line headed by B D, Orig. Iren.-lat. In fuller detail the evidence is as follows: διὰτοῦἐνοικοῦντοςκ .τ .λ . א A C P2 al., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. Macedon., Boh. Sah. Harcl. Arm. Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Method. (codd. Graec. locorum ab Epiphanio citatorum) Cyr.-Hieros codd. plur. et ed. Did. 4/5 Bas 4/4 Chrys. ad 1 Corinthians 15:45, Cyr.-Alex. ter, al. plur. διὰτὸἐνοικοῦνκ .τ .λ . B D E F G K L P &c., codd. ap. Ps.-Ath. Dial. c. Macedon.; Vulg. Pesh. (Sah. codd.); Iren.-lat. Orig. pluries; Method. vers. slav. et codd. Epiphanii 1/3 et ex parte 2/3, Cyr.-Hieros. cod. Did.-lat. semel (interp. Hieron.) Chrys. ad loc. Tert. Hil. al. plur. When these lists are examined, it will be seen at once that the authorities for the gen. are predominantly Alexandrian, and those for the acc. predominantly Western. The question is how far in each case this main body is reinforced by more independent evidence. From this point of view a somewhat increased importance attaches to Harcl. Arm. Hippol. Cyr.-Hieros. Bas. on the side of the gen. and to B, Orig. on the side of the acc. The testimony of Method. is not quite clear. The first place in which the passage occurs is a quotation from Origen: here the true reading is probably διὰτὸἐνοικοῦν , as elsewhere in that writer. The other two places belong to Methodius himself. Here too the Slavonic version has in both cases acc.; the Greek preserved in Epiphanius has in one instance acc., in the other gen. It is perhaps on the whole probable that Method. himself read acc. and that gen. is due to Epiphanius, who undoubtedly was in the habit of using gen. In balancing the opposed evidence we remember that there is a distinct Western infusion in both B and Orig. in St. Paul’ s Epistles, so that the acc. may rest not on the authority of two families of text, but only of one. On the other hand, to Alexandria we must add Palestine, which would count for something, though not very much, as being within the sphere of Alexandrian influence, and Cappadocia, which would count for rather more; but what is of most importance is the attesting of the Alexandrian reading so far West as Hippolytus. Too much importance must not be attached to the assertion of the orthodox controversialist in the Dial. c. Macedonios, that gen. is found in ‘ all the ancient copies’ ; the author of the dialogue allows that the reading is questionable. On the whole the preponderance seems to be slightly on the side of the gen., but neither reading can be ignored. Intrinsically the one reading is not clearly preferable to the other. St. Paul might have used equally well either form of expression. It is however hardly adequate to say with Dr. Vaughan that if we read the acc. the reference is ‘ to the ennobling and consecrating effect of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the human body.’ The prominent idea is rather that the Holy Spirit is Itself essentially a Spirit of Life, and therefore it is natural that where It is life should be. The gen. brings out rather more the direct and personal agency of the Holy Spirit, which of course commended the reading to the supporters of orthodox doctrine in the Macedonian controversy. The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit The doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken over from the O.T., where we have it conspicuously in relation to Creation (Genesis 1:2), in relation to Prophecy (1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Samuel 11:6; 1 Samuel 19:20, 1 Samuel 19:23, &c.), and in relation to the religious life of the individual (Psalms 51:11) and of the nation (Isaiah 63:10 f.). It was understood that the Messiah had a plenary endowment of this Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). And accordingly in the N.T. the Gospels unanimously record the visible, if symbolical, manifestation of this endowment (Mark 1:10; John 1:32). And it is an expression of the same truth when in this passage and elsewhere St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of Christ convertibly with Christ Himself. Just as there are many passages in which he uses precisely the same language of the Spirit of God and of God Himself, so also there are many others in which he uses the same language of the Spirit of Christ and of Christ Himself. Thus the ‘ demonstration of the Spirit’ is a demonstration also of the ‘ power of God’ (1 Corinthians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 2:5); the working of the Spirit is a working of God Himself (1 Corinthians 12:11 compared with ver. 6) and of Christ (Ephesians 4:11 compared with 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 12:4). To be ‘ Christ’ s’ is the same thing as to ‘ live in the Spirit’ (Galatians 5:22 ff.). Nay, in one place Christ is expressly identified with ‘ the Spirit’ : ‘ the Lord is the Spirit’ (2 Corinthians 3:17): a passage which has a seemingly remarkable parallel in Ignat. Ad Magn. xv ἔρρωσθεὲνὁμονοίᾳΘεοῦ , κεκτημένοιἀδιάκριτονπνεῦμα , ὄςἐστινἸησοῦςΧριστός (where however Bp. Lightfoot makes the antecedent to ὅς not πνεῦμα but the whole sentence; his note should be read). The key to these expressions is really supplied by the passage before us, from which it appears that the communication of Christ to the soul is really the communication of His Spirit. And, strange to say, we find this language, which seems so individual, echoed not only possibly by Ignatius but certainly by St. John. As Mr. Gore puts it (Bampton Lectures, p. 132), ‘ In the coming of the Spirit the Son too was to come; in the coming of the Son, also the Father. “ He will come unto you,” “ I will come unto you,” “ We will come unto you” are interchangeable phrases’ (cf. St. John 14:16-23). This is the first point which must be borne clearly in mind: in their relation to the human soul the Father and the Son act through and are represented by the Holy Spirit. And yet the Spirit is not merged either in the Father or in the Son. This is the complementary truth. Along with the language of identity there is other language which implies distinction. It is not only that the Spirit of God is related to God in the same sort of way in which the spirit of man is related to the man. In this very chapter the Holy Spirit is represented as standing over against the Father and pleading with Him (Romans 8:26 f.), and a number of other actions which we should call ‘ personal’ are ascribed to Him— ‘ dwelling’ (vv. 9, 11), ‘ leading’ (ver. 14), ‘ witnessing’ (ver. 16), ‘ assisting’ (ver. 26). In the last verse of 2 Corinthians St. Paul distinctly co-ordinates the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. And even where St. John speaks of the Son as coming again in the Spirit, it is not as the same but as ‘ other’ ; ‘ another Paraclete will He give you’ (St. John 14:16). The language of identity is only partial, and is confined within strict limits. Nowhere does St. Paul give the name of ‘ Spirit’ to Him who died upon the Cross, and rose again, and will return once more to judgement. There is a method running through the language of both Apostles. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is really an extension, a natural if not necessary consequence, of the doctrine of the Incarnation. As soon as it came to be clearly realized that the Son of God had walked the earth as an individual man among men it was inevitable that there should be recognized a distinction, and such a distinction as in human language could only be described as ‘ personal’ in the Godhead. But if there was a twofold distinction, then it was wholly in accordance with the body of ideas derived from the O.T. to say also a threefold distinction. It is interesting to observe that in the presentation of this last step in the doctrine there is a difference between St. Paul and St. John corresponding to a difference in the experience of the two Apostles. In both cases it is this actual experience which gives the standpoint from which they write. St. John, who had heard and seen and handled the Word of Life, who had stood beneath the cross and looked into the empty tomb, when he thinks of the coming of the Paraclete naturally thinks of Him as ‘ another Paraclete.’ St. Paul, who had not had the same privileges, but who was conscious that from the moment of his vision upon the road to Damascus a new force had entered into his soul, as naturally connects the force and the vision, and sees in what he feels to be the work of the Spirit the work also of the exalted Son. To St. John the first visible Paraclete and the second invisible could not but be different; to St. Paul the invisible influence which wrought so powerfully in him seemed to stream directly from the presence of Him whom he had heard from heaven call him by his name. SONSHIP AND 8:12-17. Live then as men bound for such a destiny, ascetics as to your worldly life, heirs of immortality. The Spirit implanted and confirms in you the consciousness of your inheritance. It tells you that you are in a special sense sons of God, and that you must some day share the glory to which Christ, your Elder Brother, has gone. 12 Such a destiny has its obligations. To the flesh you owe nothing. 13 If you live as it would have you, you must inevitably die. But if by the help of the Spirit you sternly put an end to the licence of the flesh, then in the fullest sense you will live. 14 Why so? Why that necessary consequence? The link is here. All who follow the leading of God’ s Spirit are certainly by that very fact special objects of His favour. They do indeed enjoy the highest title and the highest privileges. They are His sons. 15 When you were first baptized, and the communication of the Holy Spirit sealed your admission into the Christian fold, the energies which He imparted were surely not those of a slave. You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. No: He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of men admitted into His family, adopted as His sons. And the consciousness of that relation unlocks our lips in tender filial appeal to God as our Father. 16 Two voices are distinctly heard: one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit; the other is the voice of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same fact that we are children of God. 17 But to be a child implies something more. The child will one day inherit his father’ s possessions. So the Christian will one day enter upon that glorious inheritance which his Heavenly Father has in store for him and on which Christ as his Elder Brother has already entered. Only, be it remembered, that in order to share in the glory, it is necessary first to share in the sufferings which lead to it. 12. Lipsius would unite vv. 12, 13 closely with the foregoing; and no doubt it is true that these verses only contain the conclusion of the previous paragraph thrown into a hortatory form. Still it is usual to mark this transition to exhortation by a new paragraph (as at 6:12); and although a new idea (that of heirship) is introduced at ver. 14, that idea is only subordinate to the main argument, the assurance which the Spirit gives of future life. See also the note on οὖν in 10:14. 13. πνεύματι . The antithesis to σάρξ seems to show that this is still, as in vv. 4, 5, 9, the human πνεῦμα , but it is the human πνεῦμα in direct contact with the Divine. τὰςπράξεις : of wicked doings, as in Luke 23:51. 14. The phrases which occur in this section, ΠνεύματιΘεοῦἄγονται , τὸΠνεῦμασυμμαρτυρεῖτῷπνεύματιἡμῶν , are clear proof that the other group of phrases ἐνπνεύματιεἶναι , or τὸΠνεῦμαοἰκεῖἐνἡμῖν are not intended in any way to impair the essential distinctness and independence of the human personality. There is no such Divine ‘ immanence’ as would obliterate this. The analogy to be kept in view is the personal influence of one human being upon another. We know to what heights this may rise. The Divine influence may be still more subtle and penetrative, but it is not different in kind. υἱοὶΘεοῦ . The difference between υἱός and τέκνον appears to be that whereas τέκνον denotes the natural relationship of child to parent, υἱός implies, in addition to this, the recognized status and legal privileges reserved for sons. Cf. Westcott on St. John 1:12 and the parallels there noted. 15. πνεῦμαδουλείας . This is another subtle variation in the use of πνεῦμα . From meaning the human spirit under the influence of the Divine Spirit πνεῦμα comes to mean a particular state, habit, or temper of the human spirit, sometimes in itself (πνεῦμαζηλώσεως Numbers 5:14, Numbers 5:30; πν . ἀκηδίας Isaiah 61:3; πν . πορνείας Hosea 4:12), but more often as due to supernatural influence, good or evil (πν . σοφίαςκ .τ .λ . Isaiah 11:2; πν . πλανήσεως Isaiah 19:14; πν . κρίσεως Isaiah 28:6; πν . κατανύξεως Isaiah 29:10 ( = Romans 11:8); πν . χάριτοςκαὶοἰκτιρμοῦ Zechariah 12:10; πν . ἀσθενείας Luke 13:11; πν . δειλίας 2 Timothy 1:7; τὸπν . τῆςπλάνης 1 John 4:6). So here πν . δουλείας = such a spirit as accompanies a state of slavery, such a servile habit as the human πνεῦμα assumes among slaves. This was not the temper which you had imparted to you at your baptism . The slavery is that of the Law: cf. Galatians 4:6, Galatians 4:7, Galatians 4:24, Galatians 4:5:1. πάλινεἰςφόβον : ‘ so as to relapse into a state of fear.’ The candidate for baptism did not emerge from the terrors of the Law only to be thrown back into them again. υἱοθεσίας : a word coined, but rightly coined, from the classical phrase υἱὸςτἰθεσθαι . It seems however too much to say with Gif. that the coinage was probably due to St. Paul himself. ‘ No word is more common in Greek inscriptions of the Hellenistic time: the idea, like the word, is native Greek’ (E. L. Hicks in Studia Biblica, iv. 8). This doubtless points to the quarter from which St. Paul derived the word, as the Jews had not the practice of adoption. Ἀββᾶ , ὁπατήρ . The repetition of this word, first in Aramaic and then in Greek, is remarkable and brings home to us the fact that Christianity had its birth in a bilingual people. The same repetition occurs in Mark 14:36 and in Galatians 4:6: it gives a greater intensity of expression, but would only be natural where the speaker was using in both cases his familiar tongue. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on Mark 14:36) thinks that in the Gospel the word Ἀββᾶ only was used by our Lord and ὁΠατήρ added as an interpretation by St. Mark, and that in like manner St. Paul is interpreting for the benefit of his readers. The three passages are however all too emotional for this explanation: interpretation is out of place in a prayer. It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, using familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word of all words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is significant however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christianity that we find no other original examples of the use than these three. 16. αὐτὸτὸΠνεῦμα : see on ver. 14 above. συμμαρτυρεῖ : cf. 2:15; 9:2. There the ‘ joint-witness’ was the subjective testimony of conscience, confirming the objective testimony of a man’ s works or actions; here consciousness is analyzed, and its data are referred partly to the man himself, partly to the Spirit of God moving and prompting him. 17. κληρονόμοι . The idea of a κληρονομία is taken up and developed in N. T. from O. T. and Apocr. (Ecclus, Ps. Sol., 4 Ezr.). It is also prominent in Philo, who devotes a whole treatise to the question Quis rerum divinarum heres sit? (Mang. i. 473 ff.). Meaning originally (i) the simple possession of the Holy Land, it came to mean (ii) its permanent and assured possession (Psa_25[24]:13; 36[37]:9, 11 &c.); hence (iii) specially the secure possession won by the Messiah (Isaiah 60:21; Isaiah 61:7; and so it became (iv) a symbol of all Messianic blessings (Matthew 5:5; Matthew 19:29; Matthew 25:34, &c.). Philo, after his manner, makes the word denote the bliss of the soul when freed from the body. It is an instance of the unaccountable inequalities of usage that whereas κληρονομεῖν , κληρονομία occur almost innumerable times in LXX, κληρονόμος occurs only five times (once in Symmachus); in N. T. there is much greater equality (κληρονομεῖν eighteen, κληρονομία fourteen, κληρονόμος fifteen). συγκληρονόμοι . Our Lord had described Himself as ‘ the Heir’ in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:38). This would show that the idea of κληρονομία received its full Christian adaptation directly from Him (cf. also Matthew 25:34). εἴπερσυμπάσχομεν . St. Paul seems here to be reminding his hearers of a current Christian saying: cf. 2 Timothy 2:11 πιστὸςὁλόγος , Εἰγὰρσυναπεθάνομενκαὶσυζήσομεν · εἰὑπομένομενκαὶσυμβασιλεύσομεν . This is another instance of the Biblical conception of Christ as the Way (His Life not merely an example for ours, but in its main lines presenting a fixed type or law to which the lives of Christians must conform); cf. p. 196 above, and Dr. Hort’ s The Way, the Truth, and the Life there referred to. For εἴπερ see on 3:30. THE PATH TO GLORY 8:18-25. What though the path to that glory lies through suffering? The suffering and the glory alike are parts of a great cosmical movement, in which the irrational creation joins with man. As it shared the results of his fall, so also will it share in his redemption. Its pangs are pangs of a new birth (vv. 18-22). Like the mute creation, we Christians too wait painfully for our deliverance. Our attitude is one of hope and not of possession (vv. 23-25). 18 What of that? For the sufferings which we have to undergo in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought in view of that dazzling splendour which will one day break through the clouds and dawn upon us. 19 For the sons of God will stand forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for that consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing; like spectators straining forward over the ropes to catch the first glimpse of some triumphal pageant. 20 The future and not the present must satisfy its aspirations. For ages ago Creation was condemned to have its energies marred and frustrated. And that by no act of its own: it was God who fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope 21 that as it had been enthralled to death and decay by the Fall of Man so too the Creation shall share in the free and glorious existence of God’ s emancipated children. 22 It is like the pangs of a woman in child-birth. This universal frame feels up to this moment the throes of travail— feels them in every part and cries out in its pain. But where there is travail, there must needs also be a birth. 23 Our own experience points to the same conclusion. True that in those workings of the Spirit, the charismata with which we are endowed, we Christians already possess a foretaste of good things to come. But that very foretaste makes us long— anxiously and painfully long— for the final recognition of our Sonship. We desire to see these bodies of ours delivered from the evils that beset them and transfigured into glory. 24 Hope is the Christian’ s proper attitude. We were saved indeed, the groundwork of our salvation was laid, when we became Christians. But was that salvation in possession or in prospect? Certainly in prospect. Otherwise there would be no room for hope. For what a man sees already in his hand he does not hope for as if it were future. 25 But in our case we do not see, and we do hope; therefore we also wait for our object with steadfast fortitude. 18. λογίζομαιγάρ . At the end of the last paragraph St. Paul has been led to speak of the exalted privileges of Christians involved in the fact that they are sons of God. The thought of these privileges suddenly recalls to him the contrast of the sufferings through which they are passing. And after his manner he does not let go this idea of ‘ suffering’ but works it into his main argument. He first dismisses the thought that the present suffering can be any real counter-weight to the future glory; and then he shows that not only is it not this, but that on the contrary it actually points forward to that glory. It does this on the grandest scale. In fact it is nothing short of an universal law that suffering marks the road to glory. All the suffering, all the imperfection, all the unsatisfied aspiration and longing of which the traces are so abundant in external nature as well as in man, do but point forward to a time when the suffering shall cease, the imperfection be removed and the frustrated aspirations at last crowned and satisfied; and this time coincides with the glorious consummation which awaits the Christian. True it is that there goes up as it were an universal groan, from creation, from ourselves, from the Holy Spirit who sympathizes with us; but this groaning is but the travail-pangs of the new birth, the entrance upon their glorified condition of the risen sons of God. λογίζομαι : here in its strict sense, ‘ I calculate,’ ‘ weigh mentally,’ ‘ count up on the one side and on the other.’ ἄξια … πρός . In Plato, Gorg. p. 471 E, we have οὐδενὸςἄξιόςἐστιπρὸςτὴνἀλήθειαν : so that with a slight ellipse οὐκἄξια … πρὸςτὴνδόξαν will = ‘ not worth (considering) in comparison with the glory.’ Or we may regard this as a mixture of two constructions, (1) οὐκἄξιατῆςδόξης , i. e. ‘ not an equivalent for the glory’ ; comp. Proverbs 8:11 πᾶνδὲτίμιονοὐκἄξιοναὐτῆςἐστίν , and (2) οὐδενὸςλόγουἄξιαπρὸςτὴνδόξαν : comp. Jeremiah 23:28 τίτὸἄχυρονπρὸςτὸνσῖτον ; The thought has a near parallel in 4 Ezra 7:3 ff. Compare (e.g.) the following (vv. 12-17): Et facti sunt introitus huius saeculi angusti et dolentes et laboriosi, pauci autem et mali et periculorum pleni et labore magno opere fulti; nam maioris saeculi introitus spatiosi et securi et facientes immortalitatis fructum. Si ergo non ingredientes ingressi fuerintque vivunt angusta et vana haec, non poterunt recipere quae sunt reposita … iusti autem ferent angusta sperantes spatiosa. Compare also the quotations from the Talmud in Delitzsch ad loc. The question is asked, What is the way to the world to come? And the answer is, Through suffering. μέλλουσαν : emphatic, ‘ is destined to,’ ‘ is certain to.’ The position of the word is the same as in Galatians 3:23, and serves to point the contrast to τοῦνῦνκαιροῦ . δόξαν : the heavenly brightness of Christ’ s appearing: see on 3:23. εἰςἡμᾶς : to reach and include us in its radiance. 19. ἀποκαραδοκία : cf. Philippians 1:20 κατὰτὴνἀποκαραδοκίανκαὶἐλπίδαμου : the verb ἀποκαραδοκεῖν occurs in Aquila’ s version of Psa_37[36]:7, and the subst. frequently in Polyb. and Plutarch (see Grm.-Thay. s. v., and Ell. Lft. on Philippians 1:20). A highly expressive word ‘ to strain forward,’ lit. ‘ await with outstretched head.’ This sense is still further strengthened by the compound, ἀπο - denoting diversion from other things and concentration on a single object. This passage (especially vv. 17, 22) played a considerable part in the system of Basilides, as described in Hippol. Ref. Omn. Hacr. vii. 25-27. τῆςκτίσεως : see on 1:20. Here the sense is given by the context; ἡκτίσις is set in contrast with the ‘ sons of God,’ and from the allusion to the Fall which follows evidently refers to Genesis 3:17, Genesis 3:18 ‘ Cursed is the ground for thy sake … thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.’ The commentators however are not wrong in making the word include here the whole irrational creation. The poetic and penetrating imagination of St. Paul sees in the marks of imperfection on the face of nature, in the signs at once of high capacities and poor achievement, the visible and audible expression of a sense of something wanting which will one day be supplied. Oltr. and some others argue strenuously, but in vain, for giving to κτίσις , throughout the whole of this passage, the sense not of the world of nature, but of the world of man (similarly Orig.). He tries to get rid of the poetic personification of nature and to dissociate St. Paul from Jewish doctrine as to the origin of death and decay in nature, and as to its removal at the coming of the Messiah. But (i) there is no sufficient warrant for limiting κτίσις to humanity; (ii) it is necessary to deny the sufficiently obvious reference to Genesis 3:17-19 (where, though the ‘ ground’ or ‘ soil’ only is mentioned, it is the earth’ s surface as the seed-plot of life); (iii) the Apostle is rather taken out of the mental surroundings in which he moved than placed in them: see below on ‘ The Renovation of Nature.’ The ancients generally take the passage as above (ἡκτίσιςἡἄλογος expressly Euthym.-Zig). Orig.-lat., as expressly, has creaturam utpote rationabilem; but he is quite at fault, making τῇματαιότητι = ‘ the body.’ Chrys. and Euthym.-Zig. call attention to the personification of Nature, which they compare to that in the Psalms and Prophets, while Diodorus of Tarsus refers the expressions implying life rather to the Powers which preside over inanimate nature and from which it takes its forms. The sense commonly given to ματαιότητι is = φθορά . τὴνἀποκάλυψιντῶνυἱῶντοῦΘεοῦ . The same word ἀποκάλυψις is applied to the Second Coming of the Messiah (which is also an ἐπιφανεία 2 Thessalonians 2:8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany Him: their new existence will not be like the present, but will be in ‘ glory’ both reflected and imparted. This revealing of the sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation. The Jewish writings use similar language. To them also the appearing of the Messiah is an ἀποκάλυψις : 4 Ezra 13:32 et erit cum fient haec, et contingent signa quae ante ostendi tibi et tunc revelabitur filius meus quem vidisti ut virum ascendentem; Apoc. Bar. 39:7 et erit, cum appropinquaverit tempus finis eius ut cadat, tunc revelabitur principatus Messiae mei qui similis est fonti et viti, et cum revelatus fuerit eradicabit multitudinem congregationis eius (the Latin of this book, it will be remembered, is Ceriani’ s version from the Syriac, and not ancient like that of 4 Ezra). The object of the Messiah’ s appearing is the same as with St. Paul, to deliver creation from its ills: 4 Ezra 13:26, 29 ipse est quem conservat Altissimus multis temporibus qui per semetipsum liberabit creaturam suam et ipse disponet qui derelicti sunt … ecce dies veniunt, quando incipiet Altissimus liberare eos qui super terram sunt: Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6 quando futurum est ut Fortis innovet creaturam suam (= 4 Ezra 7:75 [Bensly] donec veniant tempora illa, in quibus incipies creaturam renovare). The Messiah does not come alone: 4 Ezra 13:51 non poterit quisque super terram videre filium meum vel eos qui cum eo sunt nisi in tempore diei. He collects round Him a double multitude, consisting partly of the ten tribes who had been carried away into captivity, and partly of those who were left in the Holy Land (ibid. vv. 12, 39 ff., 48 f.). ἀπεκδέχεται : another strong compound, where ἀπο - contains the same idea of ‘ concentrated waiting’ as in ἀποκαραδοκία above. 20. τῇ … ματαιότητι : ματαιότηςματαιοτήτων is the refrain of the Book of Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 1:2, &c.; cf. Psalms 39:5, Psalms 39:11 [38:6, 12] 144[143]:4): that is μάταιον which is ‘ without result’ , ‘ ineffective,’ ‘ which does not reach its end’ — the opposite of τέλειος : the word is therefore appropriately used of the disappointing character of present existence, which nowhere reaches the perfection of which it is capable. ὑπετάγη : by the Divine sentence which followed the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19). οὐχἑκοῦσα : not through its own fault, but through the fault of man, i. e. the Fall. διὰτὸνὑποτάξαντα : ‘ by reason of Him who subjected it,’ i. e. not man in general (Lips.); nor Adam (Chrys. al.); nor the Devil (Go.), but (with most commentators, ancient as well as modern) God, by the sentence pronounced after the Fall. It is no argument against this reference that the use of διά with acc. in such a connexion is rather unusual (so Lips.). ἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι qualifies ὑπετάγη . Creation was made subject to vanity— not simply and absolutely and there an end, but ‘ in hope that,’ &c. Whatever the defects and degradation of nature, it was at least left with the hope of rising to the ideal intended for it. 21. ὅτι . The majority of recent commentators make ὅτι define the substance of the hope just mentioned, and not give a reason for it. The meaning in any case is much the same, but this is the simpler way to arrive at it. καὶαὐτὴἡκτίσις : not only Christians but even the mute creation with them. ἀπὸτῆςδουλείαςτῆςφθορᾶςδουλείας corresponds to ὑπετάγη , the state of subjection or thraldom to dissolution and decay. The opposite to this is the full and free development of all the powers which attends the state of δόξα . ‘ Glorious liberty’ is a poor translation and does not express the idea: δόξα , ‘ the glorified state,’ is the leading fact, not a subordinate fact, and ἐλευθερία is its characteristic, ‘ the liberty of the glory of the children of God.’ 22. οἴδαμενγάρ introduces a fact of common knowledge (though the apprehension of it may not have been so common as he assumes) to which the Apostle appeals. συστενάζεικαὶσυνωδίνει . It seems on the whole best to take the συν - in both instances as = ‘ together,’ i.e. in all the parts of which creation is made up (so. Theod.-Mops. expressly: βούλεταιδὲεἰπεῖνὅτισυμφώνωςέπιδείκνυταιτοῦτοπᾶσαἡκτίσις · ἵνατὺπαρὰπάσηςτὸαὐτὸγένεσθαιὁμοίως , παιδεύσῃτούτουςτὴνπρὸςἅπανταςκοινωνίαναἱρεῖσθαιτῃτῶνλυπηρῶνκαρτερία ). Oltr. gets out of it the sense of ‘ inwardly’ , which it will not bear: Fri. Lips. and others, after Euthym.-Zig. make it = ‘ with men’ or ‘ with the children of God’ ; but if these had been pointed to, there would not be so clear an opposition as there is at the beginning of the next verse . The two verses must be kept apart. 23. οὐμόνονδέ . Not only does nature groan, but we Christians also groan: our very privileges make us long for something more. τὴνἀπαρχὴντοῦΠνεύματος : ‘ the first-fruits, or first instalment of the gift of the Spirit.’ St. Paul evidently means all the phenomena of that great outpouring which was specially characteristic of the Apostolic Age from the Day of Pentecost onwards, the varied charismata bestowed upon the first Christians (1Co_12. &c.), but including also the moral and spiritual gifts which were more permanent (Galatians 5:22 f.). The possession of these gifts served to quicken the sense of the yet greater gifts that were to come. Foremost among them was to be the transforming of the earthly or ‘ psychical’ body into a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44 ff.). St. Paul calls this a ‘ deliverance,’ i. e. a deliverance from the ‘ ills that flesh is heir to’ : for ἀπολύτρωσις see on 3:24. ἔχοντεςἡμεῖς : ἡμεῖς is placed here by א A C 5. 47. 80, also by Tisch. RV. and (in brackets) by WH. υἱοθεσίαν : see on ver. 15 above. Here υἱοθ . = the manifested, realized, act of adoption— its public promulgation. 24. τῇγὰρἐλπίδιἐσώθημεν . The older commentators for the most part (not however Luther Beng. Fri.) took the dat. here as dative of the instrument, ‘ by hope were we saved.’ Most moderns (including Gif. Go. Oltr. Mou. Lid.) take it as dat. modi, ‘ in hope were we saved;’ the main ground being that it is more in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul to say that we were saved by faith, or from another point of view— looking at salvation from the side of God— by grace (both terms are found in Ephesians 2:8) than by hope. This seems preferable. Some have held that Hope is here only an aspect of Faith: and it is quite true that the definition of Faith in Hebrews 11:1 , makes it practically equivalent to Hope. But that is just one of the points of distinction between Ep. to Heb. and St. Paul. In Heb. Faith is used somewhat vaguely of belief in God and in the fulfilment of His promises. In St. Paul it is far more often Faith in Christ, the first act of accepting Christianity (see p. 33 above). This belongs essentially to the past, and to the present as growing directly out of the past; but when St. Paul comes to speak of the future he uses another term, ἐλπίς . No doubt when we come to trace this to its origin it has its root in the strong conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus and its consequences; but the two terms are not therefore identical, and it is best to keep them distinct. Some recent Germans (Holsten, Weiss, Lips.) take the dat. as dativus commodi, ‘ for hope were we saved.’ But this is less natural. To obtain this sense we should have to personify Hope more strongly than the context will bear. Besides Hope is an attribute or characteristic of the Christian life, but not its end. ἐλπὶςδὲβλεπομένη : ἐλπίς here = ‘ the thing hoped for,’ just as κτίσις = ‘ the thing created’ ; a very common usage. ὃγὰρβλέπει , τίςἐλπίζει ; This terse reading is found only in B 47 marg., which adds τὸπαλαιὸνοὕτωςἔχει : it is adopted by RV. text, WH. text. Text. Recept. has [ὅγὰρβλέπειτις ] τίκαὶ [ἐλπίζει ], of which τί alone is found in Western authorities (D F G, Vulg. Pesh. al.), and καί alone in א 47. Both RV. and WH. give a place in the margin to τίκαὶἐλπίζει and τίςκαὶὑπομένει [ὑπομένει with א * A 47 marg.]. 25. The point of these two verses is that the attitude of hope, so distinctive of the Christian, implies that there is more in store for him than anything that is his already. δι ʼ ὑπομονῆς : constancy and fortitude under persecution, &c., pointing back to the ‘ sufferings’ of ver. 18 (cf. on 2:7; 5:4; and for the use of διά 2:27). The Renovation of Nature This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE APOSTLE’ S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’ S 9:1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it— my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice my dearest hopes— excluded too in spite of all their special privileges and their high destiny. 1How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ! How mournful the thought of those who are cut off from it! There is no shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth; and my conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God’ s Holy Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. 2 There is one grief that I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my heart. 3 Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer has been in my mind: Could I by the personal sacrifice of my own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen? Are they not my own brethren, my kinsmen as far as earthly relationship is concerned? 4 Are they not God’ s own privileged people? They bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies; it is they whom He declared to be His ‘ son,’ His ‘ firstborn’ (Exodus 4:22); their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants repeatedly renewed; to them He gave a system of law on Mount Sinai; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of the temple; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises; 5 their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous before God; from them in these last days has come the Messiah as regards his natural descent— that Messiah who although sprung from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than God, the eternal object of human praise! 9-11. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He has expounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How is this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? They had been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges), through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness by faith. How is this consistent with the justice of God? The question has been continually in the Apostle’ s mind. It has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new εὐαγγέλιον if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (1:16; 2:9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews especially had sinned (2:17). Once indeed he has begun to discuss it directly (3:1); ‘ What advantage then is there in being a Jew?’ but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary first to complete his main argument. He has dwelt on the fact that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testament (chap. 4). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question How is this conception of Christ’ s work consistent with the fact of the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply? The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps. 9-11, generally considered to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole section may be subdivided as follows: in 9:6-29 the faithfulness and justice of God are vindicated; in 9:30-10:21 the guilt of Israel is proved; in chap. 11 St. Paul shows the divine purpose which is being fulfilled and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom of God as far exceeding all human speculation. Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from 8:11 to 10:2 says salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae (Adv. Marc. v. 14). See Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons p. 518. 1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanuensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the beginning of chap. 3), but allows it gradually to become evident. He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more exactly. ἀλήθειανλέγωἐνΧριστῷ : ‘ I speak the truth in Christ, as one united with Christ’ ; cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17 ἀλλ ʼ ὡςἐξεἰλικρινείας , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςἐκΘεοῦ , κατέναντιΘεοῦἐνΧριστῷλαλοῦεν : 12:19. St. Paul has just described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin impossible; cf. 8:1, 10; and the reference to this union gives solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full credence. οὐψεύδομαι . A Pauline expression. 1 Timothy 2:7 ἀλήθειανλέγω , οὐψεύδομαι : 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:20. συμμαρτυρούσης : cf. 2:15; 8:16. The conscience is personified so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. Oecumenius ad loc. μέγαθέλειεἰπεῖν , διὸπροοδοποιεῖτῷπιστευθῆναι , τρεῖςἐπιφερόμενοςμάρτυρας , τὸνΧριστόν , τὸἍγιονΠνεῦμα , καὶτὴνἑαυτοῦσυνείδησιν . ἐνΠνεύματιἉγίῳ with συμμαρτυρούσης . St. Paul adds further solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous chapter. Cf. 8:16 αὐτὸτὸΠνεῦμασυμμαρτυρεῖτῷπνεύματιἡμῶν . St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his statement as a man does who is about to say something of the truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. πρότερονδὲδιαβεβαιοῦταιπερὶὦνμελλειλέγειν · ὅπερπολλοῖςἔθοςποιεῖνὅτανμέλλωσίτιλέγεινπαρὰτοῖςπολλοῖςἀπιστούμενονκαὶὑπὲροὗσφόδραἑαυτούςεἰσιπεπεικότες . 2. ὅτι : ‘ that,’ introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred from the next verse. λύπη (which is opposed to χαρά John 16:20) appears to mean grief as a state of mind; it is rational or emotional: ὀδύνη on the other hand never quite loses its physical associations; it implies the anguish or smart of the heart which is the result of λύπη . With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the grief of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow by enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride: 4 Ezra 8:15-18 et nunc dicens dicam, de omni homine tu magis scis, de populo autem tuo, ob quem doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et propter Israë l, propter quem tristis sum, et de semine Iacob, propter quod conturbor. Ibid. 10:6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt? quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate humiliata est, et luget validissime … 21-22 vides enim quoniam sanctificatio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus noster conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri extinctum est, et arca testamenti nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 quomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomodo lugebo super Ierusalem? quia in loco isto ubi prostratus sum nunc, olim summus sacerdos offerebat oblationes sanctas. 3. This verse which is introduced by γάρ does not give the reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity. ηὀχόμην : ‘ the wish was in my mind’ or perhaps ‘ the prayer was in my heart.’ St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. on Galatians 4:20 ‘ The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.’ See also Acts 25:22, and Burton, M. and T. § 33. ἀνάθεμα : ‘ accursed,’ ‘ devoted to destruction.’ The word was originally used with the same meaning as ἀνάθημα (of which it was a dialectic variation, see below), ‘ that which is offered or consecrated to God.’ But the translators of the Old Testament required an expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and adopted ἀνάθεμα as a translation of the Hebrew ח ָ ר ָ ם : see Leviticus 27:28, Leviticus 27:29 πᾶνδὲἀνάθεμαὃἐὰνἀναθῇἄνθρωποςτῷΚυρίῳ … οὐκἀποδώσεταιοὐδὲλυτρώσεται … καὶπᾶνὃἐὰνἀνατεθῇἀπὸτῶνἀνθρώπωνοὐλυτρωθήσεται , ἀλλὰθανάτῳθανατωθήσεται : Deuteronomy 7:26; Joshua 6:17 καὶἔσταιἡπόλιςἀνάθεμα , αὐτὴκαὶπάνταὅσαἐστὶνἐναὐτῇ , Κυρίῳσαβαώθ . And with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 16:22. The attempt to explain the word to mean ‘ excommunication’ from the society— a later use of the Hebrew in Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical— arose from a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish. There is some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the distinction in meaning between ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα . It was originally dialectic, ἀνάθημα being the Attic form (ἀνάθημαἀττικῶς , ἀνάθεμαἑλληνικῶς Moeris, p. 28) and ἀνάθεμα being found as a substitute in non-Attic works (Anth. P. 6. 162, C.I.G. 2693 d and other instances are quoted by the Dictionaries). The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the LXX (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage Isa_2 Macc. 2:13; here A reads ἀνάθεμα where we should expect ἀνάθημα , but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes and Parsons have ἀνάθημα . In the N.T. ἀνάθημα occurs once, Luke 21:5, and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, ἀνάθημα B L, ἀνάθεμα א A D). The Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical: so Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Resp. 121; Theod. on Romans 9:3, and Suidas; they are distinguished in Chrys. on Romans 9:3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in Field’ s ed. No certain instance is quoted of ἀνάθημα for ἀνάθεμα , but ἀνάθεμα could be and was used dialectically for ἀνάθημα . On the word generally see esp. Trench Syn. i. § 5; Lft. Galatians 1:8; Fri. on Romans 9:3. αὐτὸςἐγώ . The emphasis and position of these words emphasizes the willingness for personal sacrifice; and they have still more force when we remember that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. Chrys. ad loc. τίλέγεις , ὦΠαῦλε ; ἀπὸτοῦΧριστοῦτοῦποθουμένου , οὗμήτεβασιλείαμήτεγέενναἐχώριζε , μήτετὰνοούμενα , μήτεἄλλατοσαῦτα , ἀπὸτούτουνῦςεὔχῃἀνάθεμαεἶναι ; ἀπὸτοῦΧριστοῦ : ‘ separated from the Christ,’ a pregnant use of the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were ὑπὸτ . Χ . arises from a desire to soften the expression. κατὰσάρκα : cf. 4:1 as far as earthly relations are concerned’ ; spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his kinsmen were the ἀδελφοί of the Christian society. The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exodus 32:32 ‘ Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin— ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.’ On this Clem.-Rom. liii. 5 comments as follows: ὢμεγάληςἀγάπης , ὢτελειότητοςἀνυπερβλήτου , παρρησιάζεταιθεράπωνπρὸςΚύριον , αἰτεῖταιἄφεσιντῷπλήθειἢκαὶἑαντὸνἐξαλειφθῆναιμετ ʼ αὐτῶνἀξιοῖ . In answer to those who have found difficulties in the passage it is enough to say with Prof. Jowett that they arise from ‘ the error of explaining the language of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and reflection.’ There are one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 3, αὐτὸςἐγώ was placed before ἀνάθ . εἶν . by C K L, Vulg., and later authorities with T. R., and ὑπό (D E G) substituted for ἀπό (א A B C &c.). Both variations arise from a desire to modify the passage. 4. οἵτινέςεἰσιν : ‘ inasmuch as they are.’ St. Paul’ s grief for Israel arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine economy. Ἰσραηλῖται : used of the chosen people in special reference to the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; cf. Ephesians 2:12 ἀπηλλοτριωμενοιτῆςπολιτείαςτοῦἸσραὴλκαὶξένοιτῶνδιαθηκῶντῆςἐπαγγελίας : and as such it could be used metaphorically of the Christians (ὁἸσραὴλτοῦΘεοῦ Galatians 6:16; cf. ver. 6 inf.); a use which would of course be impossible for the merely national designation Ἰουδαῖοι . ‘ Israel’ is the title used in contemporary literature to express the special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. 14:3 ὅτιἡμερὶςκαὶἡκληρονομίατοῦΘεοῦἐστινὁἸσραήλ : Ecclus. 17:15 μερὶςΚυρίουἸσραὴλἐστίν : Jubilees 33:18 ‘ For Israel is a nation holy unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of priesthood and royalty and a possession.’ Thus the word seems to have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The Messianic times are ‘ the day of gladness of Israel’ (Ps. Sol. 10:7), the blessing of Israel, the day of God’ s mercy towards Israel (ib. 17:50, 51 μακάριοιοἱγινόμενοιἐνταῖςἡμέραιςἐκείναιςἰδεῖντὰἀγαθὰἸσραὴλἐνσυναγωγῇφυλῶν , ἂποιήσειὁΘεός . ταχύναιὁΘεὸςἐπὶἸσραὴλτὸἔλεοςαὐτοῦ ). When therefore St. Paul uses this name he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom. υἱοθεσία : ‘ the adoption,’ ‘ status of an adopted son’ : on the origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see above, Romans 8:15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to God described in Exodus 4:22 τάδελέγειΚύριοςΥἱὸςπρωτότοκόςμουἸσραήλ : Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1. So Jubilees 1:21 ‘ I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and in righteousness and that I love them.’ ἡδόξα :‘ the visible presence of God among His people’ (see on 3:23). δόξα is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew כ ּ ְ ב ו ֹ ד י ְ ח ו ָ ח , called by the Rabbis the Shekinah , the bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth; cf. Exodus 16:10, &c. Hence τὸκάλλοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ Ps. Son 2:5, ἀπὸθρόνουδόξης ib. ver. 20, Wisd. 9:10, imply more than the mere beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Acts 7:2, speaks of ὁΘεὸςτῆςδόξης his words would remind his hearers of the visible presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah see Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 179. αἱδιαθη 1͂και : ‘ the covenants,’ see Hatch Essays on Biblical Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:2, Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:9; Exodus 2:24). Comp. Ecclus. 44:11 μετὰτοῦσπέρματοςαὐτῶνδιαμενεῖἀγαθὴκληρονομία , ἔκγονααὐτῶιἐνταῖςδιαθήκαις ; Wisdom 18:22 λόγῳτὸνκολάζονταὑπέταξεν , ὅρκουςπατέρωνκαὶδιαθήκαςὑπομνήσας . According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11 (ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: καὶδιὰτοῦτοτέσσαρεςἐδόθησανκαθολικαὶδιαθῆκαιτῇἀνθρωπότητι · μίαμὲντοῦκατακλυσμοῦτοῦΝῶε , ἐπὶτοῦτόξουδευτέραδὲτοῦἈβραάμ , ἐπὶτοῦσημείουτῆςπεριτομῆς · τρίτηδὲἡνομοθεσίαἐπὶτοῦΜων̈σέως · τετάρτηδὲἡτοῦΕὐαγγελίου , διὰτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ *. The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and its practical bearing on Jewish life see Schü rer Geschichte, ii. p. 388. ἡνομοθεσία : a classical word, occurring also in Philo. ‘ The giving of the law.’ ‘ The dignity and glory of having a law communicated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full of awe and splendour.’ Vaughan. The current Jewish estimation of the Law (ὁνόμοςὁὑπάρχωνεἰςτὸναἰῶνα Baruch 4:1) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the reward of those who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. 14:1 πιστὸςΚύριοςτοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτὸνἐνἀληθείᾳ … τοῖςπορευομένοιςἐνδικαιοσύνῃπροσταγμάτωναὐτοῦ , ἐννόμῳὡςἐνετείλατοἡμῖνεἰςζωὴνἡμῶν . It was one of the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected the Law who would, according to St. Paul’ s teaching, inherit the promises. ἡλατρεία : ‘ the temple service.’ Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 9:6; Heb_1 Macc. 2:19, 22. As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be quoted Pirqê Aboth, 1:2 (Taylor, p. 26) ‘ Shimeon ha-Ç addiq was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.’ According to the Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be a revival of the temple services. (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.) αἱἐπαγγελίαι . ‘ the promises made in the O. T. with special reference to the coming of the Messiah.’ These promises were of course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises (cf. Ps. Sol. 12:8); and in Jewish estimation sinners were the gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be discussed. See note on 1:2, and the note of Ryle and James on Ps. Sol. loc. cit.; cf. also Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 11:13; Galatians 3:19; Gal_1 Clem 10:2. αἱδιαθῆκαι א C L, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ἡδιαθήκη B D F G, Vulg. codd. pauc.; also ἐπαγγελίαι into ἐπαγγελία D E F G, Boh. Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties. 5. οἱπατέρες : ‘ the patriarchs.’ Acts 3:13, Acts 7:32. On the ‘ merits’ of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology see the note on p. 330. ἐξὦνὁΧριστὸςτὸκατὰσάρκα . Cf. 1 Clem. xxxii. 2 ἐξαὐτοῦὁΚύριοςἸησοῦςτὸκατὰσάρκα . ὁΧρ . is not a personal name, but must be translated ‘ the Messiah.’ Not only have the Jews been united to God by so many ties, but the purpose for which they have been selected has been fulfilled. The Messiah has come forth from them, and yet they have been rejected. ὁῶνἐπὶπάντωνΘεός , κ .τ .λ .: with Χριστός (see below), ‘ who is over all, God blessed for ever.’ πάντων is probably neuter, cf. 11:36. This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of the privileged character of the Jewish race. The Privileges of Israel By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts which intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is heightened by the remembrance of the position which his countrymen have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen People, with God; every word reminds us of the glory of their past history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between the destiny of Israel and their actual condition that his grief is so profound. But the Apostle has another and more important thought to emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just emphasizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this. Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose. According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end: the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consummation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off. All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel: Israel itself was not to be blessed. They were in an especial sense the sons of God: but they were cut off from the inheritance. They were bound by special covenants to God: the covenant had been broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to the Law and a loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed: the blessings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. The promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not inherit them. Such was the problem. The pious Jew, remembering the sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when these should all pass away; when all Israel— pure and without stain— should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be collected from among the nations; when Israel which had suffered much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them. All this he expected. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the Messiah’ s own people, seemed to be cut off and rejected from the blessings which it had itself prepared for the world. How was this problem to be solved? (Cf. 4 Ezra 13; Schü rer, Geschichte, ii. 452 sq.) The Punctuation of Rom 9:5 καὶἐξὧνὁΧριστὸςτὸκατὰσάρκα , ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων , Θεὸςεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας · ἀμήν . Special literature. The interpretation of Rom 9:5 has probably been discussed at greater length than that of any other verse of the N. T. Besides long notes in various commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned: Schultz, in Jahrbü cher fü r deutsche Theologie, 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506; Grimm, Zwth., 1869, pp. 311-322; Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521: but England and America have provided the fullest discussions— by Prof. Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, The Divinity of Christ, a sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with an appendix on Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Appello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Christology, I. Examination of Rom 9:5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford’ s reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883: by Prof. Dwight and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in J.B. Exeg. June and December, 1881, pp. 22-55, 87-154; and 1883, pp. 90-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to show the most exegetical power. Alternative interpretations. Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested: (a) Placing a comma after σάρκα and referring the whole passage to Christ. So RV. (b) Placing a full stop after σάρκα and translating ‘ He who is God over all be blessed for ever,’ or ‘ is blessed for ever.’ So RV. marg. (c) With the same punctuation translating ‘ He who is over all is God blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. (d) Placing a comma after σάρκα and a full stop at πάντων , ‘ who is over all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.’ RV. marg. The original MSS without punctuation. It may be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first century we have one containing a portion of Isocrates in which a few dots are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense; in the MS. of the Πολιτεία of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except that a slight space is left before a quotation: this latter probably is as close a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of the books of the N. T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never; and, so far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century) do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second and third century Fathers: the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in the history of interpretation, but has no other value. History of the interpretation. (1) The Versions. (2) The Fathers. The history of the interpretation must be passed over somewhat cursorily. For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. It is however probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply the doxology to Christ. About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immense preponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the word to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haer. III. xvii. 2, ed. Harvey; Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (cf. Gifford, op. cit. p. 60); Novatian, Trin. 13; Cyprian, Test. ii. 6, ed. Hartel; Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Routh, Rel. Sacrae, iii. 291, 292; Athanasius, Cont. Arian. I. iii. 10; Epiphanius, Haer. Leviticus 2:9, ed. Oehler; Basil, Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eunom. 11 ; Chrysostom, Hom. ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c.; Theodoret, Ad Rom. iv. p. 100; Augustine, De Trinitate, ii. 13 ; Hilarius, De Trinitate, viii. 37, 38; Ambrosius, De Spiritu Sancto, i. 3. 46 ; Hieronymus, Ep. CXXI. ad Algas. Qu. ix; Cyril Al., Cont. Iul. x. pp. 327, 328. It is true also of Origen (in Rom. vii. 13) if we may trust Rufinus’ Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length by Gifford, op. cit. p. 31; Abbot, J. B. Exeg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad loc.). Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word Θεός was given to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the fourth. On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians; and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words do not favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in any other way. (3) The older MSS. The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading uncial MSS. Of these א has no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point after σάρκα , and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter is careful, and certainly by the original hand; but as there is a similar point and space between Χριστοῦ and ὑπέρ in ver. 3, a point between σάρκα and οἵτινες , and another between Ἰσραηλῖται and ὧν , there is no reason as far as punctuation is concerned why ὁὤν should not refer to Χριστός as much as οἵτινες does to ἀδελφῶν .*. B has a colon after σάρκα , but leaves no space, while there is a space left at the end of the verse. The present colon is however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after σάρκα . The difference between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly curious. Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad loc. tells us there were certain persons who thought the ascription of the word Θεός to Christ difficult, for St. Paul had already called him νἱὸςΘεοῦ . The long series of extracts made by Wetstein ad loc. stating that the words ὁἐπὶπάντωνΘεός cannot be used of the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not ὁἐπὶπάντωνΘεός , but ἐπὶπάντωνΘεός , and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont. Iul. x. p. 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calls Christ Θεός , but although this is certainly an interesting statement, this passage, which Cyril quotes against him, might easily have been overlooked. Two writers, and two only, Photius (Cont. Man. 3:14) and Diodorus (Cramer’ s Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the Father. (4) Modern criticism. The modern criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed out that there were certainly three alternative interpretations possible, and that as there was so much doubt about the verse it should never be used against heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later but popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting to note, was convinced by the position of εὐλογητός (see below) that the sentence must refer to Christ. From Erasmus’ time onwards opinions have varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic opinions of the writer; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not by authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language. The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads:— (1) Grammar; (2) Sequence of thought; (3) Pauline usage. The grammar of the passage. (1) τὸκαὶσὰρκα . The first words that attract our attention are τὸκατὰσάρκα , and a parallel naturally suggests itself with Romans 1:3, Romans 1:4. As there St. Paul describes the human descent from David, but expressly limits it κατὰσάρκα , and then in contrast describes his Divine descent κατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης ; so here the course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his argument. τὸκατὰσάρκα leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just what we should have expected in ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνΘεός . Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper antithesis to σάρξ is πνεῦμα . But this objection is invalid. Θεός is in a considerable number of cases used in contrast to σάρξ (Luke 3:6; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Colossians 3:22; Philemon 1:16; 2 Chronicles 32:8; Psa_55 [56]. 5; Jeremiah 17:5; Daniel 2:11; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances). Again it is argued that the expression τὸκατὰσάρκα as opposed to κατὰσάρκα precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While κατὰσάρκα allows the expression of a contrast, τὸκατὰσάρκα would limit the idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is an expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see Gifford, p. 39; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32 e; Demosth. cont. Eubul. p. 1299, l.14). But although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that neither κατὰσάρκα nor τὸκατὰσάρκα demands an expressed antithesis (Romans 4:1; Clem. Romans 1:32). The expression τὸκατὰσάρκα cannot therefore be quoted as decisive; but probably any one reading the passage for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast. (2) ὁὤν The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are ὁὤν . It is argued on the one hand that ὁὤν is naturally relatival in character and equivalent to ὅςἐστι , and in support of this statement 2 Corinthians 11:31 is quoted: ὁΘεὸςκαὶπατὴρτοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦοἶδεν , ὁὢνεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας , ὅτιοὐψεύδομαι — a passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything preceding, such as John 3:31 ὁἄνωθενἐρχόμενοςἐπάνωπάντωνἐστίν · ὁὢνἐκτῆςγῆςἐκτῆςγῆςἐστι , καὶἐκτῆςγῆςλαλεῖ : and οἱὄντες in Romans 8:5, Romans 8:8. The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that ὁὤν can be used in both ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of subject. In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and as there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would consider that the words ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνΘεός refer to what precedes unless they suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them to Christ. But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the N.T., of the participle ὤν being used with a prepositional phrase and the noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here ὁἐπὶπάντωνΘεός would be the correct expression, if Θεός is the subject of the sentence; if ὢν is added Θεός must become predicate. This excludes the translation (b.) ‘ He who is God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.’ It still leaves it possible to translate as (c.) ‘ He who is over all is God blessed for ever,’ but the reference to Χριστός remains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the word Θεός suggests in itself too great a contrast. (3) The position of εὐλογητός . It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of blessing to the Father, the word εὐλογητός would naturally come first, just as the word ‘ Blessed’ would in English. An examination of LXX usage shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward this is almost invariably its position. But the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is broken (cf. Ps. Sol. 8:40, 41). As ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνΘεός if it does not refer to ὁΧριστός must be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of εὐλογητός being as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring to the Father. The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father we should have expected him to write εὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςὁἐπὶπάντωνΘεός . If the translation (d.) suggested above, which leaves the stop at πάντων , be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Θεὸςεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position of εὐλογητός makes a doxology (b.) improbable, and the insertion of the participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour of (a.). i.e. the reference of the words to ὁΧριστός , unless the words ὁὢνἐπὶπάντωνΘεός contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not possibly be so referred. The connexion of thought. We pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any interpretation which applies the words to the Father? Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words as a doxology, ‘ He that is over all God be blessed for ever,’ or ‘ He that is God over all be blessed for ever.’ A natural criticism that at once arises is, how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology! how inconsistent with the tone of sadness which pervades the passage! Nor do the reasons alleged in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty. It is quite true of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in his mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a reference to Romans 1:25 support the interpretation. It is quite true that there we have a doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness; but like 2 Corinthians 11:31 that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental usage of adding an ascription of praise when the name of God has been introduced. That would not apply in the present case where there is no previous mention of the name of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology could not stand here; it is certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place. Prof. Kennedy’ s interpretation. So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this place in order to conciliate the Jews: ‘ He who is over all is God blessed for ever.’ It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this opinion, St. Paul’ s object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Jews, but to solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The interpretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle. Pauline usage. (1) Θεός . Unless then Pauline usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the expressions Θεός and ἐπὶπάντων to Christ, or to address to Him such a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word εὐλογητός , the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage to Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i. e. by making the difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:28; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-20), and this would quite justify the use of the expression ἐπὶπάντων of Him. So also if St. Paul can speak of Christ as εἰκὼντοῦΘεοῦ (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15), as ἐνμορφῇΘεοῦὑπάρχων , and ἶσαΘεῷ (Philippians 2:6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity than would be implied by Θεός as predicate. The question rather is this: was Θεός so definitely used of the ‘ Father’ as a proper name that it could not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father as would the word πατήρ if it were substituted? The most significant passage referred to 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, where it is asserted that Θεός is as much a proper name as κύριος or πνεῦμα and is used in marked distinction to κύριος . But this passage surely suggests the answer. Κύριος is clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Paul elsewhere speaking of the Father as Κύριος , certainly in quotations from the O.T. and probably elsewhere (1 Corinthians 3:5), nor of Χριστός as πνεῦμα (2 Corinthians 3:16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the word used predicatively would soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St. John where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs Acts 20:28 and perhaps Titus 2:14. It must be admitted that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans; but there is no impossibility either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early. (2) Doxologies addressed to Christ. So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term εὐλογητός . The distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος which it is attempted to make cannot be sustained: and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered to; gradually as the dignity of the Messiah became realized, a change would take place in the use of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing definitely in later books of the N. T., probably in 2 Timothy 4:18, certainly in Revelation 5:13 and 2 Peter 3:18. Again we can assert that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon points out, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 implies it as does also Philippians 2:5-8; and there is no reason why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theological ideas already formed. Conclusion. Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the grammar of the sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief that the words would naturally refer to Christ, unless Θεός is so definitely a proper name that it would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul’ s phraseology is never fixed; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circumstances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alternative and translate ‘ Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ THE OF ISRAEL NOT WITH THE DIVINE 9:6-13. For it is indeed true. With all these privileges Israel is yet excluded from the Messianic promises. Now in the first place does this imply, as has been urged, that the promises of God have been broken? By no means. The Scriptures show clearly that physical descent is not enough. The children of Ishmael and the children of Esau, both alike descendants of Abraham to whom the promise was given, have been rejected. There is then no breach of the Divine promise, if God rejects some Israelites as He has rejected them. 6Yet in spite of these privileges Israel is rejected. Now it has been argued: ‘ If this be so, then the Divine word has failed. God made a definite promise to Israel. If Israel is rejected, that promise is broken.’ An examination of the conditions of the promise show that this is not so. It was never intended that all the descendants of Jacob should be included in the Israel of privilege, 7no more in fact than that all were to share the full rights of sons of Abraham because they were his offspring. Two instances will prove that this was not the Divine intention. Take first the words used to Abraham in Genesis 21:12 when he cast forth Hagar and her child: ‘ In Isaac shall thy seed be called.’ These words show that although there were then two sons of Abraham, one only, Isaac, was selected to be the heir, through whom the promise was to be inherited. 8And the general conclusion follows: the right of being ‘ sons of God,’ i.e. of sharing that adoption of which we spoke above as one of the privileges of Israel, does not depend on the mere accident of human birth, but those born to inherit the promise are reckoned by God as the descendants to whom His words apply. 9The salient feature is in fact the promise, and not the birth; as is shown by the words used when the promise was given at the oak of Mamre (Genesis 18:10) ‘ At this time next year will I come and Sarah shall have a son.’ The promise was given before the child was born or even conceived, and the child was born because of the promise, not the promise given because the child was born. 10A second instance shows this still more clearly. It might be argued in the last case that the two were not of equal parentage: Ishmael was the son of a female slave, and not of a lawful wife: in the second case there is no such defect. The two sons of Isaac and Rebecca had the same father and the same mother: moreover they were twins, born at the same time. 11The object was to exhibit the perfectly free character of the Divine action, that purpose of God in the world which works on a principle of selection not dependent on any form of human merit or any convention of human birth, but simply on the Divine will as revealed in the Divine call; and so before they were born, before they had done anything good or evil, a selection was made between the two sons. 12From Genesis 25:23 we learn that it was foretold to Rebecca that two nations, two peoples were in her womb, and that the elder should serve the younger. God’ s action is independent of human birth; it is not the elder but the younger that is selected. 13And the prophecy has been fulfilled. Subsequent history may be summed up in the words of Malachi (1:2, 3) ‘ Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.’ 6. The Apostle, after conciliating his readers by a short preface, now passes to the discussion of his theme. He has never definitely stated it, but it can be inferred from what he has said. The connexion in thought implied by the word δέ is rather that of passing to a new stage in the argument, than of sharply defined opposition to what has preceded. Yet there is some contrast: he sighs over the fall, yet that fall is not so absolute as to imply a break in God’ s purpose. οὐχοἷονδὲὅτι : ‘ the case is not as though.’ ‘ This grief of mine for my fellow countrymen is not to be understood as meaning.’ Lipsius. The phrase is unique: it must clearly not be interpreted as if it were οὐχοἷόντε , ‘ it is not possible that’ : for the τε is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state what it is impossible should have happened, but what has not happened. The common ellipse οὐχὅτι affords the best analogy, and the phrase may be supposed to represent οὐτοιοῦτονδέἐστιοἷονὅτι . (Win. § lxiv. I. 6; E. T. p. 746.) ἒκπέπτωκεν : ‘ fallen from its place,’ i.e. perished and become of no effect. So 1 Corinthians 13:8 ἡἀγάπηοὐδέποτεἐκπίπτει (TR); James 1:11. ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ : ‘ the Word of God,’ in the sense of ‘ the declared purpose of God,’ whether a promise or a threat or a decree looked at from the point of view of the Divine consistency. This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Timothy 2:9; Titus 2:5), in Hebrews 13:7, in Revelation 1:9; Revelation 6:9; Revelation 20:4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to mean ‘ the Gospel’ as preached; once (in Mark 7:13), it seems to mean the O. T. Scriptures; here it represents the O. T. phrase ὁλόγοςτοῦΚυρίου : cf. Isaiah 31:2 καὶὁλόγοςαὐτοῦοὐμὴἀθετηθῇ . οἱἐξἸσραήλ : the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the υἱοὶἸσραήλ of ver. 27. οὗτοιἸσραήλ . Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on Ἰσραηλῖται which is read here also by D E F G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring out the meaning), the ἸσραὴλτοῦΘεοῦ of Galatians 6:16, intended for the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i. e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground on which he contests the idea that God’ s word has failed, he has now to prove. 7. οὐδ ʼ ὅτι . The grammatical connexion of this passage with the preceding is that of an additional argument; the logical connexion is that of a proof of the statement just made. St. Paul could give scriptural proof, in the case of descent from Abraham, of what he had asserted in the case of descent from Jacob, and thus establish his fundamental principle— that inheritance of the promises is not the necessary result of Israelitish descent. σπέρμαἉβραάμ . The word σπέρμα is used in this verse, first of natural seed or descent, then of seed according to the promise. Both senses occur together in Genesis 21:12, Genesis 21:13; and both are found elsewhere in the N. T., Galatians 3:29 εἰδὲὑμεῖςΧριστοῦ , ἄρατοῦἉβραὰμσπέρμαἐστέ : Romans 11:1 ἐγὼ … ἐκσπέρματοςἉβραάμ . The nominative to the whole sentence is πάντεςοἱἐξἸσραήλ . ‘ The descendants of Israel have not all of them the legal rights of inheritance from Abraham because they are his offspring by natural descent.’ ἀλλ ʼ . Instead of the sentence being continued in the same form as it began in the first clause, a quotation is introduced which completes it in sense but not in grammar: cf. Galatians 3:11, Galatians 3:12; 1 Corinthians 15:27. ἐνἸσαὰκκληθήσεταίσοισπέρμα : ‘ in (i.e. through) Isaac will those who are to be your true descendants and representatives be reckoned.’ ἐν implies that Isaac is the starting-point, place of origin of the descendants, and therefore the agent through whom the descent takes place; so Matthew 9:34 ἐντῷἄρχοντιτῶνδαιμονίων : 1 Corinthians 6:2. σπέρμα is used collectively to express the whole number of descendants, not merely the single son Isaac. The passage means that the sons of Israel did not inherit the promise made to Abraham because they were his offspring— there were some who were his offspring who had not inherited them; but they did so because they were descendants of that one among his sons through whom it had been specially said that his true descendants should be counted. The quotation is taken from the LXX of Gen 21:12, which it reproduces exactly. It also correctly reproduces both the language and meaning of the original Hebrew. The same passage is quoted in Hebrews 11:18. The opinion expressed in this verse is of course exactly opposite to the current opinion— that their descent bound Israel to God by an indissoluble bond. See the discussion at the end of this section. κληθήσεται : ‘ reckoned,’ ‘ considered,’ ‘ counted as the true σπέρμα ’ ; not as in ver. 11, and as it is sometimes taken here, called,’ ‘ summoned’ (see below). The uses of the word καλέω are derived from two main significations, (1) to ‘ call,’ ‘ summon,’ (2) to ‘ summon by name,’ hence ‘ to name.’ It may mean (1) to ‘ call aloud’ Hebrews 3:13, to ‘ summon,’ to ‘ summon to a banquet’ (in these senses also in the LXX), so 1 Corinthians 10:27; Matthew 22:3; from these is derived the technical sense of ‘ calling to the kingdom.’ This exact usage is hardly found in the LXX, but Isaiah 42:6 , Isaiah 51:2 approach it. In this sense it is confined to the epistles of St. Paul with Hebrews and St. Peter, the word hardly occurring at all in St. John and not in this sense elsewhere (although κλητός is so used Matthew 22:14). The full construction is καλεῖντιναεἴςτι , 1 Thessalonians 2:12 τοῦκαλοῦντοςὑμᾶςεἰςτὴνἑαυτοῦβασιλείανκαὶδόξαν : but the word was early used absolutely, and so ὁκαλῶν of God (so Romans 4:17; Romans 8:30; Romans 9:11, Romans 9:24). The technical use of the term comes out most strongly in 1Co_7 and in the derived words (see on κλητός Romans 1:1, Romans 1:7). (2) In the second group of meanings the ordinary construction is with a double accusative, Acts 14:12 ἐκάλουντετὸνΒαρνάβανΔία (so Romans 9:25, and constantly in LXX), or with ὀνόματι , ἐπὶτῷὀνόματι as Luke 1:59, Luke 1:61, although the Hebraism καλέσουσιτὸὄνομααὐτοῦἘμμανουήλ (Matthew 1:23) occurs. But to ‘ call by name’ has associations derived on the one side from the idea of calling over, reckoning, accounting; hence such phrases as Romans 9:7 (from Genesis 21:12 LXX), and on the other from the idea of affection suggested by the idea of calling by name, so Romans 9:26 (from LXX Hosea 2:1 [1:10]). These derivative uses of the word occur independently both in Greek, where κέκλημαι may be used to mean little more than ‘ to be,’ and in Hebrew. The two main meanings can always be distinguished, but probably in the use of the word each has influenced the other; when God is said to be ‘ He that calls us’ the primary idea is clearly that of invitation, but the secondary idea of ‘ calling by name,’ i.e. of expressing affection, gives a warmer colouring to the idea suggested. 8. τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιν . From this instance we may deduce a general principle. τὰτέκνατῆςσαρκός : liberi quos corporis vis genuerit. Fri. τέκνατοῦΘεοῦ : bound to God by all those ties which have been the privilege and characteristic of the chosen race. τὰτέκνατῆςἐπαγγελίας : liberi quos Dei promissum procreavit. Fri. Cf. Galatians 4:23 ἀλλ ʼ ὁμὲνἐκτῆςπαιδίσκηςκατὰσάρκαγεγέννηται , ὁδὲἐκτῆςἐλευθέραςδι ʼ ἐπαγγελίας : 28 ἡμεῖςδέ , ἀδελφοί , κατὰἸσαὰκἐπαγγελίαςτέκναἐσμέν . All these expressions are used elsewhere of Christians, but that is not their meaning in this passage. St. Paul is concerned in this place to prove not that any besides those of Jewish descent might inherit the promises, but merely that not all of Jewish descent necessarily and for that very reason must enjoy all the privileges of that descent. Physical connexion with the Jewish stock was not in itself a ground for inheriting the promise. That was the privilege of those intended when the promise was first spoken, and who might be considered to be born of the promise. This principle is capable of a far more universal application, an application which is made in the Epistle to the Galatians (3:29; 4:28, &c.), but is not made here. 9. ἐπαγγελίας must be the predicate of the sentence thrown forward in order to give emphasis and to show where the point of the argument lies. ‘ This word is one of promise,’ i.e. if you refer to the passage of Scripture you will see that Isaac was the child of promise, and not born κατὰσάρκα ; his birth therefore depends upon the promise which was in fact the efficient cause of it, and not the promise upon his birth. And hence is deduced a general law: a mere connexion with the Jewish race κατὰσάρκα does not necessarily imply a share in the ἐπαγγελία , for it did not according to the original conditions. κατὰτὸνκαιρὸντοῦτονἐλεύσομαι , καὶἔσταιτῇΣάρρᾳυἱός . St. Paul combines Genesis 18:10 (LXX) ἐπαναστρέφωνἥξωπρὸςσὲκατὰτὸνκαιρὸντοῦτονεἰςὥρας , καὶἕξειυἱὸνΣάρραἡγυνήσου : and 14 (LXX) εἰςτὸνκαιρὸντοῦτονἀναστρέψωπρὸςσὲεἰςὥρας , καὶἔσταιτῇΣάρρᾳυἱός . The Greek text is a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew, but St. Paul’ s deductions from the passage are quite in harmony with both its words and its spirit. κατὰτὸνκαιρὸντοῦτον is shown clearly by the passage in Genesis to mean ‘ at this time in the following year,’ i. e. when a year is accomplished; but the words have little significance for St. Paul: they are merely a reminiscence of the passage he is quoting, and in the shortened form in which he gives them, the meaning, without reference to the original passage, is hardly clear. 10. οὐμόνονδέ : see on 5:3, introducing an additional or even stronger proof or example. ‘ You may find some flaw in the previous argument; after all Ishmael was not a fully legitimate child like Isaac, and it was for this reason (you may say) that the sons of Ishmael were not received within the covenant; the instance that I am now going to quote has no defect of this sort, and it will prove the principle that has been laid down still more clearly.’ ἀλλὰκαὶῬεβέκκα , κ .τ .λ .: the sentence beginning with these words is never finished grammatically; it is interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 11 μήπωγὰργεννηθέντων … καλοῦντος , and then continued with the construction changed; cf. 5:12, 18; 1 Timothy 1:3. ἐξἑνός are added to emphasize the exactly similar birth of the two sons. The mother’ s name proves that they have one mother, these words show that the father too was the same. There are none of the defective conditions which might be found in the case of Isaac and Ishmael. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. (Hom. in Rom. xvi. p. 610) ἡγὰρῬεβέκκακαὶμόνητῷἸσαὰκγέγονεγυνή , καὶδύοτεκοῦσαπαῖδας , ἐκτοῦἸσαὰκἔτεκενἀμφοτέρους · ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςοἱτεχθέντεςτοῦαὐτοῦπατρὸςὄντες , τῆςαὐτῆςμητρός , τὰςαὐτὰςλύσαντεςὠδῖνας , καὶὁμοπάτριοιὄντεςκαὶὁμομήτριοι , καὶπρὸςτούτοιςκαὶδίδυμοι , οὐτῶναὐτῶνἀπήλαυσαν . κοίτηνἔχουσα : ‘ having conceived’ ; cf. Fri. ad loc. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 10:1. There is no break in the argument between this chapter and vv. 30-33 of chap. 9; but before expanding this part of the subject, the Apostle pauses for a moment, impelled by his own strong feelings and the deep tragedy of his countryman’ s rejection, to express his sorrow and affection. Marcion admitted into his text ver. 2-4, which he was able to use as a proof text of his fundamental doctrine that the Jews had been ignorant of the ‘ higher God.’ The whole or almost the whole passage which follows 10:5-11:32, he appears to have omitted, Zahn, p. 518. Tert. Adv. Marc. v. 13. ἀδελφοί . The position increases the emphasis of a word always used by the Apostle when he wishes to be specially emphatic The thought of the Christian brotherhood intensifies the contrast with the Israelites who are excluded. μέν : without a corresponding δέ . The logical antithesis is given in ver. 3. εὐδοκία : ‘ good will,’ ‘ good pleasure,’ not ‘ desire,’ which the word never means. The word εὐδοκία means ‘ good pleasure’ either (1) in relation to oneself when it comes to mean ‘ contentment,’ Ecclus. 29:23 ἐπὶμικρῷκαὶμεγάλῳεὐδοκίανἔχε : ib. 35(32):14 οἱὀρθρίζοντεςεὐρήσουσιεὐδοκίαν : 2 Thessalonians 1:11 καὶπληρώσῃπᾶσανεὐδοκίανἀγαθωσύνηςκαὶἔργονπίστεωςἐνδυνάμει : Ps. Sol. 16:12: or (2) in relation to others, ‘ good will,’ ‘ benevolence,’ Ecclus. 9:12 μὴεὐδοκήσῃςἐνεὐδοκίᾳἀσεβῶν : Philippians 1:15 τινὲςμὲνδιὰφθόνονκαὶἔριν , τινὲςδὲκαὶδι ʼ εὐδοκίαντὸνΧριστὸνκηρύσσουσιν : (3) in this sense it came to be used almost technically of the good will of God to man, Ephesians 1:5 κατὰτὴνεὐδοκίαντοῦθελήματοςαὐτοῦ : 1:9 κατὰτὴνεὐδοκίαναὐτοῦ : Ps. Sol. 8:39. The above interpretation of the word is different from that taken by Fritzsche (ad loc.), Lft. (ad Philippians 1:15), Grm. Thayer, Lex. (s. v.), Philippi and Tholuck (ad loc.). The word seems never to be used unqualified to mean ‘ desire’ ; the instance quoted by Lft. does not support it. ἡδέησις : non orasset Paulus si absolute reprobati essent. Beng. εἰςσωτηρίαν = ἵνασωθῶσι ; cf. ver. 4 εἰςδικαιοσύνην and 1:5 εἰςὑπακοὴνπίστεως . The additions ἡ before πρὸςτὸνΘεόν and ἐστιν before εἰςσωτηρίαν in the TR. are grammatical explanations. The reading τοῦἸσραήλ for αὐτῶν may have been merely an explanatory gloss, or may have arisen through the verse being the beginning of a lesson in church services. 2. μαρτυρῶγάρ . This gives the reason for St. Paul’ s grief. He had been a Jew περισσοτέρωςζηλωτὴςὑπάρχων (Galatians 1:14; cf. Acts 22:3) and hence he knew only too well the extent both of their zeal and of their ignorance. ζῆλονΘεοῦ . Obj. genitive: ‘ zeal for God’ (not as in 2 Corinthians 11:2). An O. T. expression: Judith. 9:4 ἐζήλωσαντὸνζῆλόνσου : Psa_68 [69]; 118[119]:139 ὁζῆλοςτοῦοἴκουσου : 1 Macc. 2:58 ζῆλοςνόμου . Jowett quotes Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 16 (Mang. ii. 562) ‘ Ready to endure death like immortality rather than suffer the neglect of the least of their national customs.’ St. Paul selects the very word which the Jew himself would have chosen to express just that zeal on which more than anything else he would have prided himself. κατ ʼ ἐπίγνωσιν . The Jews were destitute, not of γνῶσις , but of the higher disciplined knowledge, of the true moral discernment by which they might learn the right way. ἐπίγνωσις (see Lft. on Colossians 1:9, to whose note there is nothing to add) means a higher and more perfect knowledge, and hence it is used especially and almost technically for knowledge of God, as being the highest and most perfect form: see on 1:28 and cf. 3:20. 3. ἀγνοοῦντεςγάρ . This verse gives the reason for οὐκατ ʼ ἐπίγνωσιν , and the antithesis to ἡμὲνεὐδοκία . ἀγνοοῦντες means ‘ not knowing,’ ‘ being ignorant of,’ not ‘ misunderstanding.’ St. Paul here states simply the fact of the ignorance of his fellow-countrymen; he does not yet consider how far this ignorance is culpable: that point he makes evident later (vv. 14 sq.). τὴντοῦΘεοῦδικαιοσύνην … τὴνἰδίαν . St. Paul contrasts two methods of righteousness. On the one side there was the righteousness which came from God, and was to be sought in the manner He had prescribed, on the other was a righteousness which they hoped to win by their own methods, and by their own merit. Their zeal had been blind and misdirected. In their eagerness to pursue after the latter, they had remained ignorant of and had not submitted to the method (as will be shown, a much easier one) which God Himself had revealed. ὑπετάγησαν . Middle, ‘ submit themselves,’ cf. James 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13; 1 Peter 5:5; Winer, § xxxix, 2. p. 327 E.T. The second δικαιοσύνην after ἰδίαν of the TR. is supported by א only among good authorities, and by Tisch. only among recent editors; it is omitted by A B D E P, Vulg. Boh. Arm., and many Fathers. 4. τέλοςγὰρνόμουκ .τ .λ . St. Paul has in the preceding verse been contrasting two methods of obtaining δικαιοσύνη ; one, that ordained by God, as 9:32 shows, a method ἐκπίστεως ; the other that pursued by the Jews, a method διὰνόμου . The latter has ceased to be possible, as St. Paul now proves by showing that, by the coming of Christ Law as a means of obtaining righteousness had been brought to an end. The γάρ therefore introduces the reason, not for the actual statement of ver. 3, that the Jews had not submitted to the Divine method, but for what was implied— that they were wrong in so doing. τέλος : ‘ end,’ ‘ termination.’ Law as a method or principle of righteousness had been done away with in Christ. ‘ Christ is the end of law as death is the end of life.’ Gif. Cf. Dem. C. Eubuliden, 1306, 25 καίτοιπᾶσίνἐστινἀνθρώποιςτέλοςτοῦβίουθάνατος (quoted by Fri. and by many writers after him). The theological idea of this verse is much expanded in later Epistles, and is connected definitely with the death of Christ: Ephesians 2:15 ‘ He abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances’ ; Colossians 2:14 ‘ Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.’ This last passage is paraphrased by Lft.: ‘ Then and there [Christ] cancelled the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, nailing it to His cross, and rending it with His body, and killing it in His death.’ And as he points out, a wider reference must be given to the expression; it cannot be confined to the Jews. The ordinances, although primarily referring to the Mosaic law, ‘ will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social principles are embodied or religious duties defined; and the “ bond” is the moral assent of the conscience which (as it were) signs and seals the obligation.’ ‘ Although the moral law is eternal, yet under the Gospel it loses its form of external law, and becomes an internal principle of life.’ Lid. νόμου : ‘ Law’ as a principle (so Weiss, Oltramare, Gif.), not the Law, the Mosaic Law (so the mass of commentators). It is not possible indeed to lay stress on the absence of the article here, because the article being dropped before τελος it is naturally also dropped before νόμου (see on 2:13), and although St. Paul might have written τὸγὰρτέλοςτοῦνόμου , yet this would not exactly have suited his purpose, for τέλος is the predicate of the sentence thrown forward for emphasis. But that the application of the term must be general is shown by the whole drift of the argument (see below), by the words παντὶτῷπιστεύοντι proving that the passage cannot be confined to the Jews, and consequently not to the Mosaic law, and by the correct reading in ver. 5 τὴνἐκνόμου (see critical note). The interpretation of this verse has been much confused owing to incorrect translations of τέλος (fulfilment, aim), the confusion of νόμος and ὁνόμος , and a misapprehension of the drift of the passage. That the version given above is correct is shown (1) by the meaning of τέλος . It is quite true that Christ is the τελείωσις of the Law, that in Him what was typical has its fulfilment; but τέλος never means τελείωσις (as it is taken here by Orig. Erasmus, &c.). Again, it is equally true that the Law is the παιδαγωγός that brings men to Christ, and that Christ can be described as the object or goal of the Law (as the passage is taken by Chrys., other fathers, and Va. amongst English commentators): but τέλος is only used once in this sense in St. Paul’ s Epistles (1 Timothy 1:5), Χριστός would become the predicate, τέλος would then require the article, and νόμος would have to be interpreted of the Jewish Law. The normal meaning of the word, and the correct one here, is that of ‘ termination’ (so Aug. De W. Mey. Fri. Weiss, Oltramare); (2) by the meaning of νόμος (see above). This is interpreted incorrectly of the Jewish Law only by almost all commentators (Orig. Chrys. and all the Fathers, Erasmus, Calv. De. W. Mey. Va.); (3) by the context. This verse is introduced to explain ver. 3, which asserts that of two methods of obtaining righteousness one is right, the other wrong. St. Paul here confirms this by showing that the one has come to an end so as to introduce the other. It is his object to mark the contrast between the two methods of righteousness and not their resemblance. But the misinterpretation is not confined to this verse, it colours the interpretation of the whole passage. It is not St. Paul’ s aim to show that the Jews ought to have realized their mistake because the O. T. dispensation pointed to Christ, but to contrast the two methods. It is only later (vv. 14 f.) that he shows that the Jews had had full opportunities and warnings. εἰςδικαιοσύνηνπαντὶτῷπιστεύοντι : ‘ so that δικαιοσύνη may come to everyone that believes,’ ‘ so that everyone by believing may obtain δικαιοσύνη .’ Omni credenti, tractatur τὸ credenti v. 5:5 sq., τὸ omni v. 5:11 sq. παντι , omni ex iudaeis et gentibus. Beng. 5-10. St. Paul proceeds to describe the two modes of obtaining δικαιοσύνη in language drawn from the O. T., which had become proverbial. 5. Μωσῆςγὰργράφεικ .τ .λ . Taken from Leviticus 18:5, which is quoted also in Galatians 3:12. The original is slightly modified to suit the grammar of this passage, τὴνδικαιοσύνηντὴνἐκνόμου being made the object of ποιήσας . St. Paul quotes the words to mean that the condition of obtaining life by law is that of fulfilment, a condition which in contrast to the other method described immediately afterwards is hard, if not impossible. On this difficulty of obeying the law he has laid stress again and again in the first part of the Epistle, and it is this that he means by τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶν in Ephesians 2:15 (quoted above). ζήσεται : shall obtain life in its deepest sense both here and hereafter (see pp. 180, 196). There are a number of small variations in the text of this verse. (1) ὅτι is placed before τὴνδικαιοσύνην by א A D, Vulg. Boh., Orig.-lat., after νόμου by א c B Dc E F G K L P &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. (2) ἐκνόμου is read by א B, ἐκτοῦνόμου by the mass of later authorities. (3) ὁποιήσας is read without any addition by א * A D E, Vulg., Orig.-lat., αὐτά is added by B F G K L P &c., Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c., eam by d**e† . (4) ἄνθρωπος is om. by F G, Chrys. (5) ἐναὐτῇ is read by א A B minusc. pauc., Vulg. Boh. Orig.-lat., ἐναύτοῖς D E F G K L R &c. Syrr., Chrys. Thdrt. &c. The original text was ὅτιτὴνδικαιοσύνηντὴνἐκνόμουὁποιήσαςἄνθρωποςζήσεταιἐναὐτῇ . The alteration of αὐτά … αὐτοῖς came from a desire to make the passage correspond with the LXX, or Galatians 3:12 , and this necessitated a change in the position of ὅτι . τοῦνόμου arose from an early misinterpretation. The mixed text of B γράφειτὴνδικαιοσύνηντὴνἐκνόμουὅτιὁποιήσαςαὐτὰἄνθρωποςζήσεταιἐναὐτῇ and of D γράφειὅτιτὴνδικαιοσύνηντὴνἐκτοῦνομοῦὁποιήσαςἄνθρωποςζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς are curious, but help to support א A Vulg. Boh. 6-8. The language of St. Paul in these verses is based upon the LXX of Deu 30:11-14. Moses is enumerating the blessings of Israel if they keep his law: ‘ if thou shalt obey the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul’ ; he then goes on (the RV. translation is here modified to suit the LXX): ‘ 11[For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, nor is it far from thee. 12Not in heaven above] saying, Who shall go up for us into heaven [and receive it for us, and having heard of it we shall do it? 13Nor is it beyond the sea], saying, Who will go over to the further side of the sea for us, [and receive it for us, and make it heard by us, and we shall do it?] 14But the word is very nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, [and in thy hands, that thou mayest do it].’ The Apostle selects certain words out of this passage and uses them to describe the characteristics of the new righteousness by faith as he conceives it. It is important to notice the very numerous variations between the quotation and the LXX. In the first place only a few phrases are selected: the portions not quoted are enclosed in brackets in the translation given above. Then in those sentences that are quoted there are very considerable changes: (1) for the λέγων of the LXX, which is an ungrammatical translation of the Hebrew, and is without construction, is substituted μὴεἰπῇςἐντῇκαρδίᾳσου from Deuteronomy 8:17, Deuteronomy 9:4: (2) for τίςδιαπεράσειἡμῖνεἰςτὸπέραντῆςθαλάσσης is substituted τίςκαταβήσεταιεἰςτὴνἄβυσσον in order to make the passage better suit the purpose for which it is quoted: (3) in ver. 8 the words σφόδρα … ἐνταῖςχερσίσου are omitted (this agrees with the Hebrew), as also ποιεῖναὐτό . 6. ἡδὲἐκπίστεωςδικαιοσύνηοὕτωλέγει . It is noticeable that St. Paul does not introduce these words on the authority of Scripture (as ver. 11), nor on the authority of Moses (as ver. 5), but merely as a declaration of righteousness in its own nature. On the personification compare that of Wisdom in Proverbs 1:20; Luke 11:49; of παράκλησις Hebrews 12:5. τίςἀναβήσεταιεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν ; In the original passage these words mean: The law which I command you is not far off, it is not in heaven, so that you will have to ask, Who will go up to bring it down for us? it is very near and not hard to attain. St. Paul uses the same words to express exactly the same idea, but with a completely different application. ‘ The Gospel as opposed to the Law is not difficult or hard to attain to.’ τοῦτ ʼ ἔστι , Χριστὸνκαταγαγεῖν : ‘ that is to say, to bring Christ down.’ Just as Moses had said that there was no need for anyone to go up into heaven to bring down the law, so it is true— far more true indeed— to say that there is no need to go into heaven to bring down the object of faith and source of righteousness— Christ. Christ has become man and dwelt among us. Faith is not a difficult matter since Christ has come. The interpretations suggested of this and the following verses have been very numerous. τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιν occurs three times in this passage, and we must give it the same force in each place. In the third instance (ver. 8) it is used to give a meaning or explanation to the word τὸῥῆμα , which occurs in the quotation; it introduces in fact what would be technically known as a ‘ Midrash’ on the text quoted (so Mey. Lid. Lips. and apparently Va. Gif.). That is the meaning with which the phrase has been used in 9:8, and is also the meaning which it must have here. The infinitive cannot be dependent on τοῦτ ʼ ἔστι (for in all the passages where the phrase is used the words that follow it are in the same construction as the words that precede), but is dependent on ἀναβήσεται which it explains: so Xen. Mem. I. v. 2 (Goodwin, Greek Moods and Tenses, § 97) εἰβουλοίμεθατῷἐπιτρέψαιἢπαῖδαςπαιδεῦσαι , ἢχρήματαδιασῶσαι . In this and similar cases it is not necessary to emphasize strongly the idea of purpose as do Fri. (nempe ut Christum in orbem terrarum deducat) and Lips. (nä mlich um Christum herabzuholen), the infinitive is rather epexegetical (so apparently Va. Gif.). The LXX here reads τίςἀναβήσεται … καὶλήψεται ; the construction is changed because τοῦτ ʼ ἔστινκαὶκατάξει would hardly have been clear. Of other interpretations, some do not suit the grammar. ‘ That would be the same thing as to say Who will bring Christ down?’ would require τίςκατάξειτὸνΧριστόν . Weiss translates ‘ that would be the same thing as to bring Christ down,’ apparently making the infinitive dependent on τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιν . Other translations or paraphrases do not suit the context: ‘ Do not attempt great things, only believe’ : or, ‘ Do not waver and ask, Is Christ really come? only believe.’ The object of the passage is not to exhort to faith or to show the necessity of faith— that has been done in the early part of the Epistle; but to prove that the method of faith was one which, for several reasons, should not have been ignored and left on one side by the Jews. 7. ἤ , Τίςκαταβήσεται … ἀναγαγεῖν : ‘ nor is it necessary to search the depth, since Christ is risen from the dead.’ St. Paul substitutes τίςκαταβήσεταιεἰςτὴνἄβυσσον for the more ordinary τίςδιαπεράσειἡμῖνεἰςτὸπέραντῆςθαλάσσης , both because it makes a more suitable contrast to the first part of the sentence, and because it harmonizes better with the figurative meaning he wishes to draw from it. ἄβυσσος in the O. T. meant originally the ‘ deep sea,’ ‘ the great deep’ or ‘ the depths of the sea,’ Psa_106(107):26 ἀναβαίνουσινἕωςτῶνοὐρανῶν , καὶκαταβαίνουσινἕωςτῶνἀβύσσων , and the deep places of the earth, Psa_70(71):20 καὶἐκτῶνἀβύσσωντῆςγῆςπάλινἀνήγαγέςμε , and so had come to mean Tartarus or the Lower World; τὸνδὲτάρταροντῆςἀβύσσου Job 41:23, where the reference to τάρταρος is due to the LXX; cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632 (1605) ταρτάρουἄβυσσαχάσματα . Elsewhere in the N. T. it is so used of the abode of demons (Luke 8:31) and the place of torment (Revelation 9:1). This double association of the word made it suitable for St. Paul’ s purpose; it kept up the antithesis of the original, and it also enabled him to apply the passage figuratively to the Resurrection of Christ after His human soul had gone down into Hades. On the descensus ad inferos, which is here referred to in indefinite and untechnical language, cf. Acts 2:27; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6; and Lft. on Ign. Magn. ix; see also Swete, Apost.-creed, p. 57 ff. 8. τὸῥῆματῆςπίστεως . ‘ The message, the subject of which is faith’ ; πίστις does not mean ‘ the faith,’ i. e. ‘ the Gospel message’ (Oltramare), but, as elsewhere in this chapter, faith as the principle of righteousness. Nor does the phrase mean the Gospel message which appeals to faith in man (Lid.), but the Gospel which preaches faith, cf. 10:17. On ῥῆμα cf. 1 Peter 1:25 τὸδὲῥῆμαΚυρίουμένειεἰςτὸναἰῶνα . τοῦτοδέἐστιτὸῥῆματὸεὐαγγελισθὲνεἰςὑμᾶς . ὃκηρύσσομεν . This gives the reason why the new way of righteousness is easy to attain, being as it is brought home to every one, and suggests a thought which is worked out more fully in ver. 14 f. In what sense does St. Paul use the O. T. in vv. 6-8? The difficulty is this. In the O. T. the words are used by Moses of the Law: how can St. Paul use them of the Gospel as against the Law? The following considerations will suggest the answer to be given: (1) The context of the passage shows that there is no stress laid on the fact that the O. T. is being quoted. The object of the argument is to describe the characteristics of δικαιοσύνηἐκπίστεως , not to show how it can be proved from the O. T. (2) The Apostle carefully and pointedly avoids appealing to Scripture, altering his mode of citation from that employed in the previous verse. Mosen non citat, quia sensum Mosis non sequitur, sed tantum ab illo verba mutuatur, Vatablus, ap. Crit. Sacr. ad loc. (3) The quotation is singularly inexact. An ordinary reader fairly well acquainted with the O. T. would feel that the language had a familiar ring, but could not count it as a quotation. (4) The words had certainly become proverbial, and many instances of them so used have been quoted. Philo, Quod omn. prob. lib. § 10 (quoted by Gifford), ‘ And yet what need is there either of long journeys over the land, or of long voyages for the sake of investigating and seeking out virtue, the roots of which the Creator has laid not at any great distance, but so near, as the wise law-giver of the Jews says, “ They are in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands,” intimating by these figurative expressions the words and actions and designs of men?’ Bava Mezia, f. 94. 1 (quoted by Wetstein) Si quis dixerit mulieri, Si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata, haec conditio frustranea est; 4 Ezra 4:8 dicebas mihi fortassis: In abyssum non descendi, neque in infernum adhuc, neque in coelis unquam ascendi; Baruch 3:29, 30 τίςἀνέβηεἰςτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶἔλαβεναὐτήν , καὶκατεβίβασεναὐτὴνἐκτῶννεφελῶν ; τίςδιέβηπέραντῆςθαλάσσηςκαὶεὗρεναὐτήν (of Wisdom); Jubilees xxiv. 32 ‘ For even if he had ascended to heaven, they would bring him down from there … and even if he descends into Sheô l, there too shall his judgement be great’ ; cp. also Amos 9:2. (5) St. Paul certainly elsewhere uses the words of Scripture in order to express his meaning in familiar language, cf. ver. 18; 11:1. For these reasons it seems probable that here the Apostle does not intend to base any argument on the quotation from the O. T., but only selects the language as being familiar, suitable, and proverbial, in order to express what he wishes to say. It is not necessary therefore to consider that St. Paul is interpreting the passage of Christ by Rabbinical methods (with Mey. Lid. and others), nor to see in the passage in Deuteronomy a prophecy of the Gospel (Fri.) or a reference to the Messiah, which is certainly not the primary meaning. But when we have once realized that no argument is based on the use of the O. T., it does not follow that the use of its language is without motive. Not only has it a great rhetorical value, as Chrysostom sees with an orator’ s instinct: ‘ he uses the words which are found in the O. T., being always at pains to keep quite clear of the charges of love of novelties and of opposition to it’ ; but also there is to St. Paul a correspondence between the O. T. and N. T.: the true creed is simple whether Law on its spiritual side or Gospel (cf. Aug. De Natura et Gratia, § 83). 9. ὅτιἐὰνὁμολογήσῃςκ .τ .λ . This verse corresponds to and applies the preceding verse. The subject of the ῥῆμα which is preached by the Apostles is the person of Christ and the truth of His Resurrection. Κύριος refers to ver. 6, the Resurrection to ver. 7. The power of Christ lies in these two facts, namely His Incarnation and His Resurrection, His Divine nature and His triumph over death. What is demanded of a Christian is the outward confession and the inward belief in Him, and these sum up the conditions necessary for salvation. The ordinary reading in this verse is ἐὰνὁμολογήσῃςἐντῷστόματίσουΚύριονἸησοῦν , for which WH. substitute τὸῥῆμαἐντῷστόματίσουὅτιΚύριοςἸησοῦς . τὸῥῆμα has the authority of B 71, Clem.-Alex. and perhaps Cyril, ὅτιΚ . Ἰ . of B, Boh., Clem.-Alex. and Cyril 2/3. The agreement in the one case of B and Boh., in the other of B and Clem.-Alex. against nearly all the other authorities is noticeable. 10. καρδίᾳγὰρπιστεύεταικ .τ .λ . St. Paul explains and brings out more fully the application of the words he has last quoted. The beginning of the Christian life has two sides: internally it is the change of heart which faith implies; this leads to righteousness, the position of acceptance before God: externally it implies the ‘ confession of Christ crucified’ which is made in baptism, and this puts a man into the path by which in the end he attains salvation; he becomes σωζόμενος . 11. λέγειγὰρἡγραφήκ .τ .λ . Quoted from Isaiah 28:16 (see above, 9:33) with the addition of πᾶς to bring out the point on which emphasis is to be laid. St. Paul introduces a proof from Scripture of the statement made in the previous verse that faith is the condition of salvation, and at the same time makes it the occasion of introducing the second point in the argument, namely, the universal character of this new method of obtaining righteousness. In ver. 4 he has explained that the old system of δικαιοσύνηἐκνόμου has been done away with in Christ to make way for a new one which has two characteristics: (1) that it is ἐκπίστεως : this has been treated in vv. 5-10; (2) that it is universal: this he now proceeds to develope. 12. οὐγάρἐστιδιαστολὴἸουδαίουτεκαὶἝλληνος . St. Paul first explains the meaning of this statement, namely, the universal character of the Gospel, by making it clear that it is the sole method for Jews as well as for Gentiles. This was both a warning and a consolation for the Jews. A warning if they thought that, in spite of the preaching of the Gospel, they might seek salvation in their own way; a consolation it once they realized the burden of the law and that they might be freed from it. The Jews have in this relation no special privileges (cf. 1:16; 2:9, 10; 3:9; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11); they must obtain δικαιοσύνη by the same methods and on the same conditions as the Gentiles. This St. Paul has already proved on the ground that they equally with the Gentiles have sinned (3:23). He now deduces it from the nature and the work of the Lord. ὁγὰραὐτὸςΚύριοςπάντων , cf. 1 Corinthians 12:5. This gives the reason for the similarity of method for all alike: ‘ it is the same Lord who redeemed all mankind alike, and conferred upon all alike such wealth of spiritual blessings.’ It is better to take Κύριοςπάντων as predicate for it contains the point of the sentence, ‘ The same Lord is Lord of all’ (so the RV.). Κύριος must clearly refer to Christ, cf. vv. 9, 11. He is called Κύριοςπάντων Acts 10:36, and cf. 9:5, and Philippians 2:10, Philippians 2:11. πλουτῶν : ‘ abounding in spiritual wealth,’ cf. esp. Ephesians 3:8 τοῖςἔθνεσινεὐαγγελίσασθαιτὸἀνεξιχνίαστονπλοῦτοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . τοὺςἐπικαλουμένουςαὐτόν . ἐπικαλεῖσθαιτὸνΚύριον , or more correctly ἐπικαλεῖσθαιτὸὄνοματοῦΚυρίου , is the habitual LXX translation of a common Hebrew formula. From the habit of beginning addresses to a deity by mentioning his name, it became a technical expression for the suppliant to a god, and a designation of his worshippers. Hence the Israelites were οἱἐπικαλούμενοιτὸνΚύριον or τὸὄνομαΚυρίου . They were in fact specially distinguished as the worshippers of Jehovah. It becomes therefore very significant when we find just this expression used of the Christians as the worshippers of Christ, ὁΚύριος , in order to designate them as apart from all others, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2 σὺνπᾶσιτοῖςἐπικαλουμένοιςτὸὄνοματοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . There is a treatise on the subject by A. Seeberg, Die Anbetung des Herrn bei Paulus, Riga, 1891, see especially pp. 38, 43-46. 13. πᾶςγὰρὃςἂνἐπικαλέσηται . St. Paul sums up and clenches his argument by the quotation of a well-known passage of Scripture, Joe 2:32 (the quotation agrees with both the LXX and the Hebrew texts). The original passage refers to the prophetic conception of the ‘ day of the Lord.’ ‘ The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.’ At that time ‘ whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord’ shall be saved. This salvation , the Jewish expectation of safety in the Messianic kingdom when the end comes, is used of that Christian salvation which is the spiritual fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. Κυρίου . The term Κύριος is applied to Christ by St. Paul in quotations from the O. T. in 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 10:21, 1 Corinthians 10:26; 2 Corinthians 3:16, and probably in other passages. This quotation, besides concluding the argument of vv. 1-13, suggests the thought which is the transition to the next point discussed — the opportunities offered to all of hearing this message. ISRAEL’ S NOT EXCUSED BY WANT OF 10:14-21. This unbelief on the part of Israel was not owing to want of knowledge. Fully accredited messengers— such a body as is necessary for preaching and for faith— have announced the Gospel. There is no land but has heard the voices of the Evangelical preachers (vv. 14-18). Nor was it owing to want of understanding. Their own Prophets warned them that it was through disobedience that they would reject God’ s message (vv. 19-21). 14 All then that is required for salvation is sincerely and genuinely to call on the Lord. But there are conditions preliminary to this which are necessary; perhaps it may be urged, that these have not been fulfilled. Let us consider what these conditions are. If a man is to call on Jesus he must have faith in Him; to obtain faith it is necessary that he must hear the call; that again implies that heralds must have been sent forth to proclaim this call. 15 And heralds imply a commission. Have these conditions been fulfilled? Yes. Duly authorized messengers have preached the Gospel. The fact may be stated in the words of the Prophet Isaiah (52:7) describing the welcome approach of the messengers who bring news of the return from captivity— that great type of the other, Messianic, Deliverance: ‘ How beautiful are the feet of them that preach good tidings.’ 16 But it may be urged, in spite of this, all did not give it a patient and submissive hearing. This does not imply that the message has not been given. In fact Isaiah in the same passage in which he foretold the Apostolic message, spoke also of the incredulity with which the message is received (53:1) ‘ Lord, who hath believed our message?’ 17 Which incidentally confirms what we were saying a moment ago: Faith can only come from the message heard, and the message heard implies the message sent— the message, that is, about Christ. 18 But it may be alleged: We grant it was preached, but that does not prove that Israel heard it. Is that possible, when in the words of Psalm xix ‘ the voices of God’ s messengers went forth into all lands, and their words to the limits of the known world?’ 19 Or another excuse: ‘ Israel heard but did not understand.’ Can you say that of Israel? From the very beginning of its history a long succession of its Prophets foretold the Divine scheme. Moses, to begin with, wrote (Deuteronomy 32:21) ‘ I will excite you to jealousy at a nation outside the pale, that does not count as a nation at all. I will rouse your anger at seeing yourselves outstripped by a nation whom you regard as possessing no intelligence for the things of religion.’ 20 Isaiah too was full of boldness. In the face of his fellow-countrymen he asserted (65:1) that God’ s mercies should be gained by those who had not striven after them (the Gentiles). 21 And then he turns round to Israel and says that although God had never ceased stretching out His arms to them with all the tenderness of a mother, they had received His call with disobedience, and His message with criticism and contradiction. The Jews have fallen, not because of God’ s unfaithfulness or injustice, not because of want of opportunity, but because they are a rebellious people— a people who refuse to be taught, who choose their own way, who cleave to that way in spite of every warning and of every message. 14-21. This section seems to be arranged on the plan of suggesting a series of difficulties, and giving short decisive answers to each: (1) ‘ But how can men believe the Gospel unless it has been fully preached?’ (5:14). Answer. ‘ It has been preached as Isaiah foretold’ (ver. 15). (2) ‘ Yet, all have not accepted it’ (ver. 16). Answer. ‘ That does not prove that it was not preached. Isaiah foretold also this neglect of the message’ (vv. 16, 17). (3) ‘ But perhaps the Jews did not hear’ (5:18). Answer. ‘ Impossible. The Gospel has been preached everywhere.’ (4) ‘ But perhaps they did not understand’ (ver. 19). Answer. ‘ That again is impossible. The Gentiles, a people without any real knowledge, have understood. The real fact is they were a disobedient, self-willed people.’ The object is to fix the guilt of the Jews by removing every defence which might be made on the ground of want of opportunities. ‘ The passage which follows (14-21) is in style one of the most obscure portions of the Epistle.’ This statement of Jowett’ s is hardly exaggerated. ‘ The obscurity arises,’ as he proceeds to point out, ‘ from the argument being founded on passages of the Old Testament.’ These are quoted without explanation, and without their relation to the argument being clearly brought out. The first difficulty is to know where to make a division in the chapter. Some put it after ver. 11 (so Go.) making vv. 11-21 a proof of the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles; some after ver. 13 (Chrys. Weiss, Oltr. Gif.); some after ver. 15 (Lid. WH. Lips.). The decision of the question will always depend on the opinion formed of the drift of the passage, but we are not without structural assistance. It may be noticed throughout these chapters that each succeeding paragraph is introduced by a question with the particle οὖν : so 9:14 τίοὖνἐροῦμεν ; 30; 11:1, 11. And this seems to arise from the meaning of the particle: it sums up the conclusion of the preceding paragraph as an introduction to a further step in the argument. This meaning will exactly suit the passage under consideration. ‘ The condition of salvation is to call on the Lord’ — that is the conclusion of the last section: then the Apostle goes on, ‘ if this be so, what then are the conditions necessary for attaining it, and have they been fulfilled?’ the words forming a suitable introduction to the next stage in the argument. This use of οὖν to introduce a new paragraph is very common in St. Paul. See especially Romans 5:1, Romans 5:6:1, Romans 5:12:1; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:1; 2 Timothy 2:1, besides other less striking instances. It may be noticed that it is not easy to understand the principle on which WH. have divided the text of these chapters, making no break at all at 9:29, beginning a new paragraph at chap. 10, making a break here at ver. 15, making only a slight break at chap. 11, and starting a new paragraph at ver. 13 of that chapter at what is really only a parenthetical remark. 10:14, 15. The main difficulty of these verses centres round two points: With what object are they introduced? And what is the quotation from Isaiah intended to prove? 1. One main line of interpretation, following Calvin, considers that the words are introduced to justify the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; in fact to support the πᾶς of the previous verse. God must have intended His Gospel to go to the heathen, for a duly commissioned ministry (and St. Paul is thinking of himself) has been sent out to preach it. The quotation then follows as a justification from prophecy of the ministry to the Gentiles. The possibility of adopting such an interpretation must depend partly on the view taken of the argument of the whole chapter (see the General Discussion at the end), but in any case the logical connexion is wrong. If that were what St. Paul had intended to say, he must have written, ‘ Salvation is intended for Gentile as well as Jew, for God has commissioned His ministers to preach to them: a commission implies preaching, preaching implies faith, faith implies worship, and worship salvation. The conversion of the Gentiles is the necessary result of the existence of an apostolate of the Gentiles.’ It will be seen that St. Paul puts the argument exactly in the opposite way, in a manner in fact in which he could never prove this conclusion. 2. Roman Catholic commentators, followed by Liddon and Gore, consider that the words are introduced in order to justify an apostolic or authorized ministry. But this is to introduce into the passage an idea which is quite alien to it, and which is unnecessary for the argument. 3. The right interpretation of the whole of this paragraph seems to be that of Chrysostom. The Jews, it has been shown, have neglected God’ s method of obtaining righteousness; but in order, as he desires, to convict them of guilt in this neglect, St. Paul must show that they have had the opportunity of knowing about it, that their ignorance (ἀγνοοῦντες ver. 3) is culpable. He therefore begins by asking what are the conditions necessary for ‘ calling upon the Lord?’ and then shows that these conditions have been fulfilled. There may still be some question as to the meaning of the quotation. (1) It may be introduced merely as corroborative of the last chain in the argument (so most commentators). This need of a commissioned ministry corresponds to the joy and delight experienced when they arrive. Or better, (2) it may be looked upon as stating the fulfilment of the conditions. ‘ Yes, and they have come, a fact that no one can fail to recognize, and which was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah.’ So Chrysostom, who sums up the passage thus: ‘ If the being saved, then, came of calling upon Him, and calling upon Him from believing, and believing from hearing, and hearing from preaching, and preaching from being sent, and if they were sent, and did preach, and the prophet went round with them to point them out, and proclaim them, and say that these were they whom they showed of so many ages ago, whose feet even they praised because of the matter of their preaching; then it is quite clear that the not believing was their own fault only. And that because God’ s part had been fulfilled completely.’ 14. πῶςοὖνἐπικαλέσωνται . The word οὖν , as often in St. Paul, marks a stage in the argument. ‘ We have discovered the new system of salvation: what conditions are necessary for its acceptance?’ The question is not the objection of an adversary, nor merely rhetorical, but rather deliberative (see Burton, M. and T. § 169): hence the subjunctive (see below) is more suitable than the future which we find in 9:30. The subject of ἐπικαλέσωνται is implied in vv. 12, 13, ‘ those who would seek this new method of salvation by calling on the name of the Lord.’ In this series of questions in vv. 14, 15 the MSS. vary between the subjunctive and the future. Generally the authority for the subjunctive strongly preponderates: ἐπικαλέσωνται א A B D E F G, πιστεύσωσιν א B D E F G P, κηρύξωσιν א A B D E K L P. In the case of ἀκούσωσιν there is a double variation. א c A (A latet) B and some minuscules read ἀκούσωσιν ; א D E F G K P and some minuscules read ἀκούσονται ; L etc., Clem.-Alex. Ath. Chrys. edd. Theodrt. and the TR. read ἀκούσουσι . Here however the double variant makes the subjunctive almost certain. Although the form ἀκούσουσι is possible in N.T. Greek, it is most improbable that it should have arisen as a corruption from ἀκούσονται , and it is too weakly supported to be the correct reading. ἀκούσωσιν , which will explain both variants and harmonizes with the other subjunctives, is therefore correct. B here alone among the leading MSS. is correct throughout. οὗοὐκἤκουσαν : ‘ how can they believe on Him whom they have not heard preaching?’ οὗ is for εἰςτοῦτονοὗ : and as ἀκούειντινος means not ‘ to hear of some one,’ but ‘ to hear some one preaching or speaking,’ it must be so translated, and what follows must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ’ s messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ Himself. This interpretation (that of Mey. and Gif.), although not without difficulties, is probably better than either of the other solutions proposed. It is suggested that οὗ may be for ὅν , and the passage is translated ‘ of whom they have not heard’ ; but only a few instances of this usage are quoted, and they seem to be all early and poetical. The interpretation of Weiss, οὗ = where, completely breaks the continuity of the sentences. 15. κηρύξωσιν . The nominative is οἱκηρύσσοντες , which is implied in κηρύσσοντος . By means of this series of questions St. Paul works out the conditions necessary for salvation back to their starting-point. Salvation is gained by calling on the Lord; this implies faith. Faith is only possible with knowledge. Knowledge implies an instructor or preacher. A preacher implies a commission. If therefore salvation is to be made possible for everyone, there must have been men sent out with a commission to preach it. καθὼςγέγραπται , Ὡςὡραῖοιοἱπόδεςτῶνεὐαγγελιζομένωνἀγαθά . By introducing this quotation St. Paul implies that the commissioned messengers have been sent, and the conditions therefore necessary for salvation have been fulfilled. ‘ Yes, and they have been sent: the prophet’ s words are true describing the glorious character of the Evangelical preachers.’ The quotation is taken from Isaiah 52:7, and resembles the Hebrew more closely than our present LXX text. In the original it describes the messengers who carry abroad the glad tidings of the restoration from captivity. But the whole of this section of Isaiah was felt by the Christians to be full of Messianic import, and this verse was used by the Rabbis of the coming of the Messiah (see the references given by Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 179). St. Paul quotes it because he wishes to describe in O. T. language the fact which will be recognized as true when stated, and to show that these facts are in accordance with the Divine method. ‘ St. Paul applies the exclamation to the appearance of the Apostles of Christ upon the scene of history. Their feet are ώραῖοι in his eyes, as they announce the end of the captivity of sin, and publish εἰρήνη made by Christ, through the blood of His Cross, between God and man, between earth and heaven (2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Ephesians 2:17; Colossians 1:20); and all the blessings of goodness which God in Christ bestows on the Redeemed, especially δικαιοσύνη .’ Liddon. There are two critical questions in connexion with this quotation: the reading of the Greek text and its relation to the Hebrew and to the LXX. (1) The RV. reads ὡςὡραῖιοἱπόδεςτῶνεὐαγγελιζομένωνἀγαθά : the T. R. inserts τῶνεὐαγ . εἰρήνην after οἱπόδες . The balance of authority is strongly in favour of the RV. The clause is omitted by א A B C minusc. pauc. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Aeth., Clem.-Alex. Orig. and Orig.-lat.: it is inserted by D E F G K L P &c., Vulg. Syrr. (Pesh. Harcl.) Arm. Goth., Chrys. Iren.-lat. Hil. al. The natural explanation is that the insertion has been made that the citation may correspond more accurately to the LXX. This end is not indeed altogether attained, for the LXX reads ἀκοὴνεἰρήνης , and the omission might have arisen from Homoeoteleuton; but these considerations can hardly outweigh the clear preponderance of authority. There is a somewhat similar difficulty about a second minor variation. The RV. reads ἀγαθά with A B C D E F G P, Orig. Eus. Jo.-Damasc., the T. R. has τὰἀγαθά with א etc. Clem.-Alex. Chrys. and most later authorities. Here the LXX omits the article, and it is difficult quite to see why it should have been inserted by a corrector; whereas if it had formed part of the original text he could quite naturally have omitted it. (2) The LXX translation is here very inexact. πάρειμιὡςὥραἐπὶτῶνὀρέων , ὡςπόδεςεὐαγγελιζομένουἀκοὴνεἰρήνης , ὡςεὐαγγελιζόμενοςἀγαθά . St. Paul’ s words approach much more nearly to the Hebrew (RV.) ‘ How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation.’ He shortens the quotation, makes it plural instead of singular to suit his purpose, and omits the words ‘ upon the mountains,’ which have only a local significance. 16. ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάντες . An objection suggested. ‘ Yet, in spite of the fact that this message was sent, all did not obey the Gospel.’ οὐπάντες is a meiosis; cf. τίγὰρεἰἠπίστησάντινες ; (3:3). ὑπήκουσαν , like ὑπετάγησαν (ver. 3), seems to imply the idea of voluntary submission: cf. 6:16, 17 δοῦλοίἐστεᾧὑπακούετε … ὑπηκούσατεδὲἐκκαρδίαςεἰςὃνπαρεδόθητε . τῷεὐαγγελίῳ . The word is of course suggested by the quotation of the previous verse. Ἡσαΐαςγὰρλέγεικ .τ .λ . ‘ But this fact does not prove that no message had been sent; it is indeed equally in accordance with prophecy, for Isaiah, in a passage immediately following that in which he describes the messengers, describes also the failure of the people to receive the message.’ With γάρ cf. Matthew 1:20 ff. The quotation is from the LXX of Isa 53:1. Κύριε , as Origen pointed out, does not occur in the Hebrew. ἀκοῇ : means (1) ‘ hearing,’ ‘ the faculty by which a thing is heard’ ; (2) ‘ the substance of what is heard,’ ‘ a report, message.’ In this verse it is used in the second meaning, ‘ who hath believed our report?’ In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, ‘ faith comes by hearing.’ It is quite possible of course to translate ‘ report’ or ‘ message’ there also, but then the connexion of idea with ver. 18 μὴοὐκἤκουσαν is obscured. It has been questioned to whom St. Paul is referring in this and the preceding verses— the Gentiles or the Jews. The language is quite general and equally applicable to either, but the whole drift of the argument shows that it is of the Jews the Apostle is thinking. Grotius makes vv. 14 and 15 the objection of an opponent to which St. Paul replies in ver. 16 ff. 17. ἄραἡπίστις . ‘ Hence may be inferred (in corroboration of what was said above) that the preliminary condition necessary for faith is to have heard, and to have heard implies a message.’ This sentence is to a certain extent parenthetical, merely emphasizing a fact already stated; yet the language leads us on to the excuse for unbelief suggested in the next verse. διὰῥήματοςΧριστοῦ : ‘ a message about Christ.’ Cf. ver. 8 τὸῥῆματῆςπίστεωςὃκηρύσσομεν . St. Paul comes back to the phrase he has used before, and the use of it will remind his readers that this message has been actually sent. Χριστοῦ is the reading of א B C &2; D E minusc. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh. Arm. Aeth. Orig.-Lamentations 2:2, Ambrstr. Aug.— Θεοῦ of א c A Db c K L P al. pler., Syrr., Clem.-Alex. Chrys. Theodrt. St. Paul has laid down the conditions which make faith possible, a Gospel and messengers of the Gospel; the language he has used reminds his readers that both these have come. Yet, in spite of this, the Jews have not obeyed. He now suggests two possible excuses. 18. ἀλλὰλέγω : ‘ but it may be said in excuse: It is possible that those whom you accuse of not obeying the Gospel message have never heard of it?’ On μὴοὐ see Burton, M. and T. § 468. μενοῦνγε : an emphatic corrective, ‘ with a slight touch of irony’ (Lid.); cf. 9:20. εἰςπᾶσαντὴνγῆνκ .τ .λ . St. Paul expresses his meaning in words borrowed from Psalms 19:5. (18:5), which he cites word for word according to the LXX, but without any mark of quotation. What stress does he intend to lay on the words? Does he use them for purely literary purposes to express a well-known fact? or does he also mean to prove the fact by the authority of the O. T. which foretold it? 1. Primarily at any rate St. Paul wishes to express a well-known fact in suitable language. ‘ What do you say? They have not heard! Why the whole world and the ends of the earth have heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard?’ Chrys. 2. But the language of Scripture is not used without a point. In the original Psalm these words describe how universally the works of nature glorify God. By using them St. Paul ‘ compares the universality of the preaching of the Gospel with the universality with which the works of nature proclaim God.’ Gif. A second difficulty is raised by older commentators. As a matter of fact the Gospel had not been preached everywhere; and some writers have inverted this argument, and used this text as a proof that even as early as this Christianity had been universally preached. But all that St. Paul means to imply is that it is universal in its character. Some there were who might not have heard it; some Jews even might be among them. He is not dealing with individuals. The fact remained true that, owing to the universal character of its preaching, those whose rejection of it he is considering had at any rate as a body had the opportunities of hearing of it. 19. ἀλλὰλέγω , μὴἸσραὴλοὐκἔγνω ; a second excuse is suggested: ‘ surely it cannot be that it was from ignorance that Israel failed?’ (1) What is the meaning of the somewhat emphatic introduction of Ἰσραήλ It has been suggested that it means a change of subject. That while the former passage refers to Gentiles, or to Gentiles as well as Jews, here the writer at last turns to Israel in particular. But there has been no hint that the former passage was dealing with the Gentiles, and if such a contrast had been implied Ἰσραήλ would have had to be put in a much more prominent place, περὶδὲτοῦἸσραὴλλέγω , μὴοὐκἔγνω ; The real reason for the introduction of the word is that it gives an answer to the question, and shows the untenable character of the excuse. Has Israel, Israel with its long line of Prophets, and its religious privileges and its Divine teaching, acted in ignorance? When once ‘ Israel’ has been used there can be no doubt of the answer. (2) But, again, what is it suggested that Israel has not known? As the clause is parallel with μὴοὐκἤκουσαν , and as no hint is given of any change, the object must be the same, namely ῥῆμαΧριστοῦ , the message concerning the Messiah. All such interpretations as the ‘ calling of the Gentiles’ or ‘ the universal preaching of the Gospel’ are outside the line of argument. (3) But how is this consistent with ἀγνοοῦντες ver. 3? The contradiction is rather formal than real. It is true Israel’ s zeal was not guided by deep religious insight, and that they clung blindly and ignorantly to a method which had been condemned; but this ignorance was culpable: if they did not know, they might have known. From the very beginning of their history their whole line of Prophets had warned them of the Divine plan. (4) The answer to this question is given in three quotations from the O. T. Israel has been warned that their Messiah would be rejected by themselves and accepted by the Gentiles. They cannot plead that the message was difficult to understand; even a foolish people (it was foretold) would accept it, and thus stir up Israel to jealousy. Nor again can they plead that it was difficult to find; for Isaiah with great boldness has stated that men who never sought or asked for it would find it. The real reason was that the Israelites are a disobedient and a stubborn people, and, although God has all day long stretched forth His hands to them, they will not hear Him. πρῶτοςΜωσῆς . εὐθὺςΜωσῆς . ‘ Even as early in Israel’ s history as Moses.’ ἐγὼπαραζηλώσωὑμᾶςκ .τ .λ .: taken from Deuteronomy 32:21 substantially according to the LXX . In the original the words mean that as Israel has roused God’ s jealousy by going after no-gods, so He will rouse Israel’ s jealousy by showing His mercy to those who are no-people. 20. Ἡσαΐαςδὲἀποτολμᾷ . St. Paul’ s position in opposing the prejudices of his countrymen made him feel the boldness of Isaiah in standing up against the men of his own time. The citation is from Isaiah 65:1 according to the LXX, the clauses of the original being inverted. The words in the original refer to the apostate Jews. St. Paul applies them to the Gentiles; see on 9:25, 26. B D* F G with perhaps Sah. and Goth. add ἐν twice before τοῖς , a Western reading which has found its way into B (cf. 11:6). It does not occur in א A C Db c E L P etc., and many Fathers. 21. πρὸςδὲτὸνἸσραὴλλέγεικ .τ .λ . This citation (Isaiah 65:2) follows almost immediately that quoted in ver. 20, and like it is taken from the LXX, with only a slight change in the order. In the original both this verse and the preceding are addressed to apostate Israel; St. Paul applies the first part to the Gentiles, the latter part definitely to Israel. The Argument of 9:30-10:21: Human Responsibility We have reached a new stage in our argument. The first step was the vindication of God’ s faithfulness and justice: the second step has been definitely to fix guilt on man. It is clearly laid down that the Jews have been rejected through their own fault. They chose the wrong method. When the Messiah came, instead of accepting Him, they were offended. They did not allow their zeal for God to be controlled by a true spiritual knowledge. And the responsibility for this is brought home to them. All possible excuses, such as want of opportunity, insufficient knowledge, inadequate warning, are suggested, but rejected. The Jews are a disobedient people and they have been rejected for their disobedience. Now it has been argued that such an interpretation is inconsistent with Chap. 9. That proves clearly, it is asserted, that grace comes to man, not in answer to man’ s efforts, but in accordance with God’ s will. How then can St. Paul go on to prove that the Jews are to blame? In order to avoid this assumed inconsistency, the whole section, or at any rate the final portion, has been interpreted differently: vv. 11-21 are taken to defend the Apostolic ministry to the Gentiles and to justify from the O. T. the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews: vv. 14, 15 are used by St. Augustine to prove that there can be no faith without the Divine calling; by Calvin, that as there is faith among the Gentiles, there must have been a Divine call, and so the preaching to them is justified. Then the quotations in vv. 18-21 are considered to refer to the Gentiles mainly; they are merely prophecies of the facts stated in 9:30, 31 and do not imply and are not intended to imply human responsibility. An apparent argument in favour of this interpretation is suggested by the introductory words 9:30, 31. It is maintained that two propositions are laid down there; one the calling of the Gentiles, the other the rejection of the Jews, and both these have to be justified in the paragraph that follows. But, as a matter of fact, this reference to the Gentiles is clearly introduced not as a main point to be discussed, but as a contrast to the rejection of Israel. It increases the strangeness of that fact, and with that fact the paragraph is concerned. This is brought out at once by the question asked διὰτί ; which refers, as the answer shows, entirely to the rejection of Israel. If the Apostle were not condemning the Jews there would be no reason for his sorrow (10:1) and the palliation for their conduct which he suggests (10:2); and when we come to examine the structure of the latter part we find that all the leading sentences are concerned not with the defence of any ‘ calling,’ but with fixing the guilt of those rejected: for example ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάντεςὑπήκουσαν (v. 16), ἀλλὰλέγω , μὴοὐκἤκουσαν ; (v. 18), μὴἸσραὴλοὐκἔγνω ; (v. 19). As there is nowhere any reference to Gentiles rejecting the message, the reference must be to the Jews; and the object of the section must be to show the reason why (although Gentiles have been accepted) the Jews have been rejected. The answer is given in the concluding quotation, which sums up the whole argument. It is because the Jews have been a disobedient and gainsaying people. Chrysostom, who brings out the whole point of this section admirably, sums up its conclusion as follows: ‘ Then to prevent them saying, But why was He not made manifest to us also? he sets down what is more than this, that I not only was made manifest, but I even continued with My hands stretched out, inviting them, and displaying all the concern of an affectionate father, and a fond mother that is set on her child. See how he has brought us a most lucid answer to all the difficulties before raised, by showing that it was from their own temper that ruin had befallen them, and that they are wholly undeserving of pardon.’ We must accept the interpretation then which sees in this chapter a proof of the guilt of the Jews. St. Paul is in fact looking at the question from a point of view different from that which he adopted in Chap. 9. There he assumes Divine Sovereignty, and assuming it shows that God’ s dealings with the Jews are justified. Now he assumes human responsibility, and shows that assuming it the Jews are guilty. Two great steps are passed in the Divine Theodicy. We need not anticipate the argument, but must allow it to work itself out. The conclusion may suggest a point of view from which these two apparently inconsistent attitudes can be reconciled. St. Paul’ s Use of the Old Testament In Chaps. 9-11 St. Paul, as carrying on a long and sustained argument, which, if not directed against Jewish opponents, discusses a question full of interest to Jews from a Jewish point of view, makes continued use of the O. T., and gives an opportunity for investigating his methods of quotation and interpretation. The text of his quotations is primarily that of the LXX. According to Kautzsch (De Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo Apostolo allegatis), out of eighty-four passages in which St. Paul cites the O. T. about seventy are taken directly from the LXX or do not vary from it appreciably, twelve vary considerably, but still show signs of affinity, and two only, both from the book of Job (Romans 11:35 = Job 41:3 (11); 1 Corinthians 3:19 = Job 5:13) are definitely independent and derived either from the Hebrew text or some quite distinct version. Of those derived from the LXX a certain number, such for example as Romans 10:15, show in some points a resemblance to the Hebrew text as against the LXX. We have probably not sufficient evidence to say whether this arises from a reminiscence of the Hebrew text (conscious or unconscious), or from an Aramaic Targum, or from the use of an earlier from of a LXX text. It may be noticed that St. Paul’ s quotations sometimes agree with late MSS. of the LXX as against the great uncials (cf. 3:4, 15 ff.). As to the further question whether he cites from memory or by reference, it may be safely said that the majority of the quotations are from memory; for many of them are somewhat inexact, and those which are correct are for the most part short and from well-known books. There is a very marked distinction between these and the long literary quotations of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE OF ISRAEL NOT 11:1-10. Israel then has refused to accept the salvation offered it; is it therefore rejected? No. At any rate the rejection is not complete. Now as always in the history of Israel, although the mass of the people may be condemned to disbelief, there is a remnant that shall be saved. 1 The conclusion of the preceding argument is this. It is through their own fault that Israel has rejected a salvation which was fully and freely offered. Now what does this imply? Does it mean that God has rejected His chosen people? Heaven forbid that I should say this! I who like them am an Israelite, an Israelite by birth and not a proselyte, a lineal descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe that with Judah formed the restored Israel after the exile. 2 No, God has not rejected His people. He chose them for His own before all time and nothing can make Him change His purpose. If you say He has rejected them, it only shows that you have not clearly grasped the teaching of Scripture concerning the Remnant. Elijah on Mt. Horeb brought just such an accusation against his countrymen. 3 He complained that they had forsaken the covenant, that they had overthrown God’ s altars, that they had slain His Prophets; just as the Jews at the present day have slain the Messiah and persecuted His messengers. Elijah only was left, and his life they sought. The whole people, God’ s chosen people, had been rejected. 4 So he thought; but the Divine response came to him, that there were seven thousand men left in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. There was a kernel of the nation that remained loyal. 5 Exactly the same circumstances exist now as then. Now as then the mass of the people are unfaithful, but there is a remnant of loyal adherents to the Divine message:— a remnant, be it remembered, chosen by God by an act of free favour: 6 that is to say those whom God has in His good pleasure selected for that position, who have in no way earned it by any works they have done, or any merit of their own. If that were possible Grace would lose all its meaning: there would be no occasion for God to show free favour to mankind. 7 It is necessary then at any rate to modify the broad statement that has been made. Israel, it is true, has failed to obtain the righteousness which it sought; but, although this is true of the nation as a whole, there is a Remnant of which it is not true. Those whom God selected have attained it. But what of the rest? Their hearts have been hardened. Here again we find the same conditions prevailing throughout Israel’ s history. 8Isaiah declared (29:10; 6:9, 10) how God had thrown the people into a state of spiritual torpor. He had given them eyes which could not see, and ears which could not hear. All through their history the mass of the people has been destitute of spiritual insight. 9 And again in the book of Psalms, David (69:23, 24) declares the Divine wrath against the unfaithful of the nation: ‘ May their table be their snare.’ It is just their position as God’ s chosen people, it is the Law and the Scriptures, which are their boast, that are to be the cause of their ruin. They are to be punished by being allowed to cleave fast to that to which they have perversely adhered. 10 ‘ Let their eyes be blinded, so that they cannot see light when it shines upon them: let their back be ever bent under the burden to which they have so obstinately clung.’ This was God’ s judgement then on Israel for their faithlessness, and it is God’ s judgement on them now. 1-36. St. Paul has now shown (1) (9:6-29) that God was perfectly free, whether as regards promise or His right as Creator, to reject Israel; (2) (9:30-10:21) that Israel on their side by neglecting the Divine method of salvation offered them have deserved this rejection. He now comes to the original question from which he started, but which he never expressed, and asks, Has God, as might be thought from the drift of the argument so far, really cast away His people? To this he gives a negative answer, which he proceeds to justify by showing (1) that this rejection is only partial (11:1-10), (2) only temporary (11:11-25), and (3) that in all this Divine action there has been a purpose deeper and wiser than man can altogether understand (11:26-36). 1. λέγωοὖν . This somewhat emphatic phrase occurring here and in ver. 11 seems to mark a stage in the argument, the οὖν as so often summing up the result so far arrived at. The change of particle shows that we have not here a third question parallel to the ἀλλὰλέγω of 10:18, 19. μὴἀπώσατοὁΘεὸςτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ ; ‘ Is it possible that God has cast away His people?’ The form of the question implies necessarily a negative answer and suggests an argument against it. (1) By the juxtaposition of ὁΘεός and τὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ . Israel is God’ s people and so He cannot reject them. Ipsa populi eius appellatio rationem negandi continet. Beng. (2) By the use made of the language of the O. T. Three times in the O. T. (1 Samuel 12:22; 93 [94], 14; 94 [95], 4) the promise οὐκἀπώσεταιΚύριοςτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ occurs. By using words which must be so well known St. Paul reminds his readers of the promise, and thus again implies an answer to the question. This very clear instance of the merely literary use of the language of the O. T. makes it more probable that St. Paul should have adopted a similar method elsewhere, as in 10:6 ff., 18. μὴγένοιτο . St. Paul repudiates the thought with horror. All his feelings as an Israelite make it disloyal in him to hold it. καὶγὰρκ .τ .λ . These words have been taken in two ways. (1) As a proof of the incorrectness of the suggestion. St. Paul was an Israelite, and he had been saved; therefore the people as a whole could not have been rejected. So the majority of commentators (Go. Va. Oltr. Weiss). But the answer to the question does not occur until St. Paul gives it in a solemn form at the beginning of the next verse; he would not therefore have previously given a reason for its incorrectness. Moreover it would be inconsistent with St. Paul’ s tact and character to put himself forward so prominently. (2) It is therefore better to take it as giving ‘ the motive for his deprecation, not a proof of his denial’ (Mey. Gif. Lips.). Throughout this passage, St. Paul partly influenced by the reality of his own sympathy, partly by a desire to put his argument in a form as little offensive as possible, has more than once emphasized his own kinship with Israel (9:1-3; 10:1). Here for the first time, just when he is going to disprove it, he makes the statement which has really been the subject of the two previous passages, and at once, in order if possible to disarm criticism, reminds his readers that he is an Israelite, and that therefore to him, as much as to them, the supposition seems almost blasphemous. Ἰσραηλίτηςκ .τ .λ . Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5. ὃνπροέγνω , which is added by Lachmann after τὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ , has the support of A D Chrys. and other authorities, but clearly came in from ver. 2. 2. οὐκἀπώσατο . St. Paul gives expressly and formally a negative answer to the question he has just asked, adding emphasis by repeating the very words he has used. ὃνπροέγνω . The addition of these words gives a reason for the emphatic denial of which they form a part. Israel was the race which God in His Divine foreknowledge had elected and chosen, and therefore He could not cast it off. The reference in this chapter is throughout to the election of the nation as a whole, and therefore the words cannot have a limiting sense (Orig. Chrys. Aug.), ‘ that people whom He foreknew,’ i.e. those of His people whom He foreknew; nor again can they possibly refer to the spiritual Israel, as that would oblige a meaning to be given to λαός different from that in ver. 1. The word προέγνω may be taken, (1) as used in the Hebrew sense, to mean ‘ whom He has known or chosen beforehand.’ So γινώσκειν in the LXX. Amos 3:2 ὑμᾶςἔγνωνἐκπασῶντῶνφυλω 1͂ντῆςγῆς . And in St. Paul 1 Corinthians 8:3 εἰδέτιςἀγαπᾷτὸνΘεόν , οὗτοςἔγνωσταιὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . Galatians 4:9 νῦνδὲγνόντεςΘεόν , μᾶλλονδὲγνωσθέντεςὑπὸΘεοῦ . 2 Timothy 2:19 ἔγνωΚύριοςτοὺςὄνταςαὐτοῦ . Although there is no evidence for this use of προγινώσκειν it represents probably the idea which St. Paul had in his mind (see on 8:29). (2) But an alternative interpretation taking the word in its natural meaning of foreknowledge, must not be lost sight of, ‘ that people of whose history and future destiny God had full foreknowledge.’ This seems to be the meaning with which the word is generally used (Wisd. 6:13; 8:8; 18:6; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 28; Dial. 42. p. 261 B.); so too πρόγνωσις is used definitely and almost technically of the Divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23), and in this chapter St. Paul ends with vindicating the Divine wisdom which had prepared for Israel and the world a destiny which exceeds human comprehension. ἤοὐκοἴδατε : cf. 2:4; 6:3; 7:1; 9:21. ‘ You must admit this or be ignorant of what the Scripture says.’ The point of the quotation lies not in the words which immediately follow, but in the contrast between the two passages; a contrast which represented the distinction between the apparent and the real situation at the time when the Apostle wrote. ἐνἨλίᾳ : ‘ in the section of Scripture which narrates the story of Elijah.’ The O. T. Scriptures were divided into paragraphs to which were given titles derived from their subject-matter; and these came to be very commonly used in quotations as references. Many instances are quoted from the Talmud and from Hebrew commentators: Berachoth, fol. 2Ch_1, fol. 4.Col_2 id quod scriptum est apud Michä el, referring to Isaiah 6:6. So Taanijoth, ii. 1; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 9; Shir hashirim rabbai. 6, where a phrase similar to that used here, ‘ In Elijah,’ occurs, and the same passage is quoted, ‘ I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of Hosts.’ So also Philo, De Agricultura, p. 203 (i. 317 Mang.) λέγειγὰρἐνταῖςἀραῖς , referring to Genesis 3:15. The phrase ἐπὶτῆςβάτου Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Clem. Hom. xvi. 14; Apost. Const. v. 20, is often explained in a similar manner, but very probably incorrectly, the ἐπί being perhaps purely local. The usage exactly corresponds to the method used in quoting the Homeric poems. As the Rabbis divided the O. T. into sections so the Rhapsodists divided Homer, and these sections were quoted by their subjects, ἐνἜκτοροςἀναιρέσει , ἐννεκυίᾳ . (See Fri. Delitzsch ad loc., Surenhusius, Βίβλοςκαταλλαγῆς , p. 31.) ἐντυγχάνει : ‘ he accuses Israel before God.’ The verb ἐντυγχάνειν means, (1) ‘ to meet with,’ (2) ‘ to meet with for the purposes of conversation,’ ‘ have an interview with,’ Acts 25:24; hence (3) ‘ to converse with,’ ‘ plead with,’ Wisdom 8:21, either on behalf of some one Romans 8:27, Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25; or against some one , and so (4) definitely ‘ to accuse’ as here and 1 Macc. 11:25 καὶἐνετύγχανονκατ ʼ αὐτοῦτινεςἄνομοιτῶνἐκτοῦἔθνους : 8:32; 10:61, 63. The TR. adds λέγων at the end of this verse with א *L al. pler., it is omitted by א c A B C D E F G P min. pauc., Vulg. Sah. Boh., and most Fathers. 3. Κύριε , τοὺςπροφήταςκ .τ .λ . The two quotations come from 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14, 1 Kings 19:18; the first being repeated twice. Elijah has fled to Mt. Horeb from Jezebel, and accuses his countrymen before God of complete apostasy; he alone is faithful. God answers that even although the nation as a whole has deserted Him, yet there is a faithful remnant, 7,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. There is an analogy, St. Paul argues, between this situation and that of his own day. The spiritual condition is the same. The nation as a whole has rejected God’ s message, now as then; but now as then also there is a faithful remnant left, and if that be so God cannot be said to have cast away His people. The quotation is somewhat shortened from the LXX, and the order of the clauses is inverted, perhaps to put in a prominent position the words τοὺςπροφήταςσουἀπέκτειναν to which there was most analogy during St. Paul’ s time (cf. Acts 7:52; 1 Thessalonians 2:14). The καί between the clauses of the TR. is read by D E L and later MSS. Justin Martyr, Dial. 39. p. 257 D, quotes the words as in St. Paul and not as in the LXX: ΚαὶγὰρἨλίαςπερὶὑμῶνπρὸςτὸνΘεὸνἐντυγχάνωνοὕτωςλέγει · Κύριε , τοὺςπροφήταςσουἀπέκτεινανκαὶτὰθυσιαστήριάσουκατέσκαψανκἀγὼὑπελείφθηνμόνοςκαὶζητοῦσιτὴνψυχήνμου . καὶἀποκρίνεταιαὐτῷ , Ἔτιεἰσίμοιἑπτακισχίλιοιἄνδρες , οἳοὐκἔκαμψανγόνυτῇΒάαλ . 4. ὁχρηματισμός : ‘ the oracle.’ An unusual sense for the word, which occurs here only in the N. T., but is found in 2 Macc. 2:4; Clem.Rom; xvii. 5 and occasionally elsewhere. The verb χρηματίζειν meant (1) originally ‘ to transact business’ ; then (2) ‘ to consult,’ ‘ deliberate’ ; hence (3) ‘ to give audience,’ ‘ answer after deliberation’ ; and so finally (4) of an oracle ‘ to give a response, taking the place of the older χράω ; and so it is used in the N. T. of the Divine warning Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:22 χρηματισθέντεςκατ ʼ ὄναρ : Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5; 11:7: cf. Jos. Antt. V. i. 14; X. i. 3; XI. iii. 4. From this usage of the verb χρηματίζω was derived χρηματισμός , as the more usual χρησμός from χράω . See also p. 173. τῇΒάαλ : substituted by St. Paul (as also by Justin Martyr, loc. cit.) for the LXX τῷΒάαλ , according to a usage common in other passages in the Greek Version. The word Baal, which means ‘ Lord,’ appears to have been originally used as one of the names of the God of Israel, and as such became a part of many Jewish names, as for example Jerubbaal (Jude 1:6:32; Jude 1:7:1), Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 9:39), Meribbaal (1 Chronicles 9:40), &c. But gradually the special association of the name with the idolatrous worship of the Phoenician god caused the use of it to be forbidden. Hosea 2:16, Hosea 2:17 ‘ and it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.’ Owing to this motive a tendency arose to obliterate the name of Baal from the Scriptures: just as owing to a feeling of reverence ‘ Elohim’ was substituted for ‘ Jehovah’ in the second and third books of the Psalms. This usage took the form of substituting Bosheth, ‘ abomination,’ for Baal. So Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33, 1 Chronicles 9:39) became Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:8; 2 Samuel 3:8); Meribbaal (1 Chronicles 9:40) Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:6 ff.); Jerubbaal Jerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). See also Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 3:24; Jeremiah 11:13. Similarly in the LXX αἰσχύνη represents in one passage Baal of the Hebrew text, 3 Kings 18:19, 25. But it seems to have been more usual to substitute αἰσχύνη in reading for the written Βάαλ , and as a sign of this Qeri the feminine article was written; just as the name Jehovah was written with the pointing of Adonai. This usage is most common in Jeremiah, but occurs also in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and other Prophets. It appears not to occur in the Pentateuch. The plural ταῖς occurs 2 Chronicles 24:7; 2 Chronicles 33:3. This, the only satisfactory explanation of the feminine article with the masculine name, is given by Dillmann, Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 1881, p. 601 ff. and has superseded all others. The LXX version is again shortened in the quotation, and for καταλείψω is substituted κατέλιπονἐμαυτῷ , which is an alternative and perhaps more exact translation of the Hebrew. 5. οὓτωςοὖν . The application of the preceding instance to the circumstances of the Apostle’ s own time. The facts were the same. St. Paul would assume that his readers, some of whom were Jewish Christians, and all of whom were aware of the existence of such a class, would recognize this. And if this were so the same deduction might be made. As then the Jewish people were not rejected, because the remnant was saved; so now there is a remnant, and this implies that God has not cast away His people as such. λεῖμμα , ‘ a remnant.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and in the O. T. only twice, and then not in the technical sense of the ‘ remnant.’ The usual word for that is τὸκαταλειφθέν . κατ ʼ ἐκλογὴνχάριτος . Predicate with γέγονεν . ‘ There has come to be through the principle of selection which is dependent on the Divine grace or favour.’ This addition to the thought, which is further explained in ver. 6, reminds the reader of the result of the previous discussion: that ‘ election’ on which the Jews had always laid so much stress had operated, but it was a selection on the part of God of those to whom He willed to give His grace, and not an election of those who had earned it by their works. 6. εἰδὲχάριτικ .τ .λ . A further explanation of the principles of election. If the election had been on the basis of works, then the Jews might have demanded that God’ s promise could only be fulfilled if all who had earned it had received it: St. Paul, by reminding them of the principles of election already laid down, implies that the promise is fulfilled if the remnant is saved. God’ s people are those whom He has chosen; it is not that the Jews are chosen because they are His people. ἐπεὶἡχάριςοὐκέτιγίνεταιχάρις : ‘ this follows from the very meaning of the idea of grace.’ Gratia nisi gratis sit gratia non est. St. Augustine. The TR. after γίνεταιχάρις adds εἰδὲἐξἔργων , οὐκέτιἐστὶχάρις · ἐπεὶτὸἔργονοὐκέτιἐστὶνἔργον with א c (B) L and later MSS., Syrr., Chrys. and Thdrt. (in the text, but they do not refer to the words in their commentary). B reads εἰδὲἐξἔργων , οὐκέτιχάρις · ̀ἐπεὶτὸἔργονοὐκέτιἐστὶχάρις . The clause is omitted by א A C D E F G P, Vulg. Aegyptt. (Boh. Sah.) Arm., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrst Patr.-latt. There need be no doubt that it is a gloss, nor is the authority of B of any weight in support of a Western addition such as this against such preponderating authority. This is considered by WH. to be the solitary or almost the solitary case in which B possibly has a Syrian reading (Introd. ii. 150). 7. τίοὖν ; This verse sums up the result of the discussion in vv. 2-6. ‘ What then is the result? In what way can we modify the harsh statement made in ver. 1? It is indeed still true that Israel as a nation has failed to obtain what is its aim, namely righteousness: but at the same time there is one portion of it, the elect, who have attained it.’ ἡδὲἐκλογή : i. e. οἱἐκλεκτοί . The abstract for the concrete suggests the reason for their success by laying stress on the idea rather than on the individuals. οἱδὲλοιποὶἐπωρώθησαν : ‘ while the elect have attained what they sought, those who have failed to attain it have been hardened.’ They have not failed because they have been hardened, but they have been hardened because they have failed; cf. 1:24 ff., where sin is represented as God’ s punishment inflicted on man for their rebellion. Here St. Paul does not definitely say by whom, for that is not the point it interests him to discuss at present: he has represented the condition of Israel both as the result of God’ s action (ch. 9) and of their own (ch. 10). Here as in κατηρτισμένα 9:22, he uses the colourless passive without laying stress on the cause: the quotation in ver. 8 represents God as the author, ἔπταισαν in ver. 11 suggests that they are free agents. The verb πωρόω (derived from πῶρος a callus or stone formed in the bladder) is a medical term used in Hippocrates and elsewhere of a bone or hard substance growing when bones are fractured, or of a stone forming in the bladder. Hence metaphorically it is used in the N. T., and apparently there only of the heart becoming hardened or callous: so Mark 6:52; John 12:40; Romans 11:7; 2 Corinthians 3:14: while the noun πώρωσις occurs in the same sense, Mark 3:5; Romans 11:25; Ephesians 4:18. The idea is in all these places the same, that a covering has grown over the heart, making men incapable of receiving any new teaching however good, and making them oblivious of the wrong they are doing. In Job 17:7 the word is used of blindness, but again only of moral blindness; anger has caused as it were a covering to grow over the eyes. There is therefore no need to take the word to mean ‘ blind,’ as do the grammarians (Suidas, πωρός , ὁτυφλός : πεπώρωται , τετύφλωται : Hesychius, πεπωρωμένοι , τετυφλωμένοι ) and the Latin Versions (excaecati, obcaecati). It is possible that this translation arose from a confusion with πηρός (see on κατανύξεως below) which was perhaps occasionally used of blindness (see Prof. Armitage Robinson in Academy, 1892, p. 305), although probably then as a specialized usage for the more general ‘ maimed.’ Although the form πηρόω occurs in some MSS. of the N. T., yet the evidence against it is in every case absolutely conclusive, as it is also in the O. T. in the one passage where the word occurs. 8. καθὼςγέγραπται . St. Paul supports and explains his last statement οἱδὲλοιποὶἐπωρώθησαν by quotations from the O. T. The first which in form resembles Deuteronomy 29:4, modified by Isaiah 29:10; Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10, describes the spiritual dulness or torpor of which the prophet accuses the Israelites. This he says had been given them by God as a punishment for their faithlessness. These words will equally well apply to the spiritual condition of the Apostle’ s own time, showing that it is not inconsistent with the position of Israel as God’ s people, and suggesting a general law of God’ s dealing with them. The following extracts, in which the words that St. Paul has made use of are printed in spaced type, will give the source of the quotation. Deuteronomy 29:4 καὶοὐκἓδωκενΚύριοςὁΘεὸςὑμῖνκαρδίανεἰδέναικαὶὀφθαλμοὺςβλέπεινκαὶὦταἀκούεινἕωςτῆςἡμέραςταύτης . Isaiah 29:10 ὅτιπεπότικενὑμᾶςΚύριοςπνεύματικατανύξεως : cf. Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10 ἀκοῇἀκούσετεκαὶοὐμὴσυνῆτεκαὶβλέποντεςβλέψετεκαὶοὐμὴἴδητε . … καὶεἶπαἛωςπότε , Κύριε ; While the form resembles the words in Deut., the historical situation and meaning of the quotation are represented by the passages in Isaiah to which St. Paul is clearly referring. πνεῦμακατανύξεως : ‘ a spirit of torpor,’ a state of dull insensibility to everything spiritual, such as would be produced by drunkenness, or stupor. Isaiah 29:10 (RV.) ‘ For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, the prophets; and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.’ The word κατάνυξις is derived from κατανύσσομαι . The simple verb νύσσω is used to mean to ‘ prick’ or ‘ strike’ or ‘ dint.’ The compound verb would mean, (1) to ‘ strike’ or ‘ prick violently,’ and hence (2) to ‘ stun’ ; no instance is quoted of it in its primary sense, but it is common (3) especially in the LXX of strong emotions, of the prickings of lust Susan. 10 (Theod.); of strong grief Genesis 34:7; Ecclus. 14:1; and so Acts 2:37 κατενύγησαντῇκαρδίᾳ of being strongly moved by speaking. Then (4) it is used of the stunning effect of such emotion which results in speechlessness: Isaiah 6:5 ὢτάλαςἐγὼὄτικατανένυγμαι : Daniel 10:15 ἔδωκατὸπρόσωπόνμουἐπὶτὴνγῆνκαὶκατενύγην , and so the general idea of torpor would be derived. The noun κατάνυξις appears to occur only twice, Isaiah 29:10 πνεῦμακατανύξεως , 59:4[4]οἶνονκατανύξεως . In the former case it clearly means ‘ torpor’ or ‘ deep sleep,’ as both the context and the Hebrew show, in the latter case probably so. It may be noticed that this definite meaning of ‘ torpor’ or ‘ deep sleep’ which is found in the noun cannot be exactly paralleled in the verb; and it may be suggested that a certain confusion existed with the verb νυστάξω , which means ‘ to nod in sleep,’ ‘ be drowsy,’ just as the meaning of ἐριθεία was influenced by its resemblance to ἔρις (cf. 2:8). On the word generally see Fri. ii. p. 558 ff. ἔωςτῆςσήμερονἡμέρας : cf. Acts 7:51 ‘ Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did so do ye.’ St. Stephen’ s speech illustrates more in detail the logical assumptions which underlie St. Paul’ s quotations. The chosen people have from the beginning shown the same obstinate adherence to their own views and a power of resisting the Holy Ghost; and God has throughout punished them for their obstinacy by giving them over to spiritual blindness. 9. καὶΔαβὶδλέγεικ .τ .λ : quoted from the LXX of 68 [69]. 23, 24 γενηθήτωἡτράπεζααὐτῶνἐνώπιοναὐτῶνεἰςπαγίδα , καὶεἰςἀνταπόδοσινκαὶσκάνδαλον · σκοτισθήτωσανκ .τ .λ . (which is ascribed in the title to David) with reminiscences of 34:8 [8], and 27:4[4]. The Psalmist is represented as declaring the Divine wrath against those who have made themselves enemies of the Divine will. Those who in his days were the enemies of the spiritual life of the people are represented in the Apostle’ s days by the Jews who have shut their ears to the Gospel message. ἡτράπεζααὐτῶν : ‘ their feast.’ The image is that of men feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in which they are caught. σκάνδαλον : ‘ that over which they fall,’ ‘ a cause of their destruction.’ ἀνταπόδομα : 27:4 [4.. ‘ A requital,’ ‘ recompense.’ The Jews are to be punished for their want of spiritual insight by being given over to blind trust in their own law; in fact being given up entirely to their own wishes. 10. σκοτισθήτωσανκ .τ .λ . ‘ May their eyes become blind, so that they have no insight, and their backs bent like men who are continually groping about in the dark!’ They are to be like those described by Plato as fast bound in the cave: even if they are brought to the light they will only be blinded by it, and will be unable to see. The judgement upon them is that they are to be ever bent down with the weight of the burden which they have wilfully taken on their backs. It may be worth noticing that Lipsius, who does not elsewhere accept the theory of interpolations in the text, suggests that vv. 9, 10 are a gloss added by some reader in the margin after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Holsten, Z. f. w. T. 1872, p. 455; Michelsen, Th. T. 1887, p. 163; Protestanten-bibel, 1872, p. 589; E. T. ii. 154). It is suggested that διαπαντὸς is inconsistent with ver. 11 ff. But it has not been noticed that in ver. 11 we have a change of metaphor, ἔπταισαν , which would be singularly out of place if it came immediately after ver. 8. As it is, this word is suggested and accounted for by the metaphors employed in the quotation introduced in ver. 9 If we omit vv. 9, 10 we must also omit ver. 11. There is throughout the whole Epistle a continuous succession of thought running from verse to verse which makes any theory of interpolation impossible. (See Introduction, § 9.) The Doctrine of the Remnant The idea of the ‘ Remnant’ is one of the most typical and significant in the prophetic portions of the O. T. We meet it first apparently in the prophetic narrative which forms the basis of the account of Elijah in the book of Kings, the passage which St. Paul is quoting. Here a new idea is introduced into Israel’ s history, and it is introduced in one of the most solemn and impressive narratives of that history. The Prophet is taken into the desert to commune with God; he is taken to Sinai, the mountain of God, which played such a large part in the traditions of His people, and he receives the Divine message in that form which has ever marked off this as unique amongst theophanies, the ‘ still small voice,’ contrasted with the thunder, and the storm, and the earthquake. And the idea that was thus introduced marks a stage in the religious history of the world, for it was the first revelation of the idea of personal as opposed to national consecration. Up to that time it was the nation as a whole that was bound to God, the nation as a whole for which sacrifices were offered, the nation as a whole for which kings had fought and judges legislated. But the nation as a whole had deserted Jehovah, and the Prophet records that it is the loyalty of the individual Israelites who had remained true to Him that must henceforth be reckoned. The nation will be chastised, but the remnant shall be saved. The idea is a new one, but it is one which we find continuously from this time onwards; spiritualized with the more spiritual ideas of the later prophets. We find it in Amos (9:8-10), in Micah (2:12, 5:3, in Zephaniah (3:12, 13), in Jeremiah (23:3), in Ezekiel (14:14-20, 22), but most pointedly and markedly in Isaiah. The two great and prominent ideas of Isaiah’ s prophecy are typified in the names given to his two sons,— the reality of the Divine vengeance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) and the salvation of the Remnant (Shear-Jashub) and, through the Holy and Righteous Remnant, of the theocratic nation itself (7:3; 8:2, 18; 9:12; 10:21, 24); and both these ideas are prominent in the narrative of the call (6:9-13) ‘ Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes … Then said I, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until cities be waste without inhabitant and homes without men, and the land become utterly waste.’ But this is only one side. There is a true stock left. ‘ Like the terebinth and the oak, whose stock remains when they are cut down and sends forth new saplings, so the holy seed remains as a living stock and a new and better Israel shall spring from the ruin of the ancient state’ (Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 234). This doctrine of a Remnant implied that it was the individual who was true to his God, and not the nation, that was the object of the Divine solicitude; that it was in this small body of individuals that the true life of the chosen nation dwelt, and that from them would spring that internal reformation, which, coming as the result of the Divine chastisement, would produce a whole people, pure and undefiled, to be offered to God (Isaiah 65:8, Isaiah 65:9). The idea appealed with great force to the early Christians. It appealed to St. Stephen, in whose speech one of the main currents of thought seems to be the marvellous analogy which runs through all the history of Israel. The mass of the people has ever been unfaithful; it is the individual or the small body that has remained true to God in all the changes of Israel’ s history, and these the people have always persecuted as they crucified the Messiah. And so St. Paul, musing over the sad problem of Israel’ s unbelief, finds its explanation and justification in this consistent trait of the nation’ s history. As in Elijah’ s time, as in Isaiah’ s time, so now the mass of the people have rejected the Divine call; but there always has been and still is the true Remnant, the Remnant whom God has selected, who have preserved the true life and ideal of the people and thus contain the elements of new and prolonged life. And this doctrine of the ‘ Remnant’ is as true to human nature as it is to Israel’ s history. No church or nation is saved en masse, it is those members of it who are righteous. It is not the mass of the nation or church that has done its work, but the select few who have preserved the consciousness of its high calling. It is by the selection of individuals, even in the nation that has been chosen, that God has worked equally in religion and in all the different lines along which the path of human development has progressed. [On the Remnant see especially Jowett, Contrasts of Prophecy, in Romans ii. p. 290; and Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel, pp. 106, 209, 234, 258. The references are collected in Oehler, Theologie des alten Testaments, p. 809. THE OF ISRAEL NOT FINAL 11:11-24. The Rejection of Israel is not complete, nor will it be final. Its result has been the extension of the Church to the Gentiles. The salvation of these will stir the Jews to jealousy; they will return to the Kingdom, and this will mean the final consummation (vv. 10-15). Of all this the guarantee is the holiness of the stock from which Israel comes. God has grafted you Gentiles into that stock against the natural order; far more easily can He restore them to a position which by nature and descent is theirs (vv. 16-24). 11The Rejection of Israel then is only partial. Yet still there is the great mass of the nation on whom God’ s judgement has come: what of these? Is there no further hope for them? Is this stumbling of theirs such as will lead to a final and complete fall? By no means. It is only temporary, a working out of the Divine purpose. This purpose is partly fulfilled. It has resulted in the extension of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles. It is partly in the future; that the inclusion of these in the Kingdom may rouse the Jews to emulation and bring them back to the place which should be theirs and from which so far they have been excluded. 12And consider what this means. Even the transgression of Israel has brought to the world a great wealth of spiritual blessings; their repulse has enriched the nations, how much greater then will be the result when the chosen people with their numbers completed have accepted the Messiah? 13In these speculations about my countrymen, I am not disregarding my proper mission to you Gentiles. It is with you in my mind that I am speaking. I will put it more strongly. I do all I can to glorify my ministry as Apostle to the Gentiles, 14and this in hopes that I may succeed in bringing salvation to some at any rate of my countrymen by thus moving them to emulation. 15And my reason for this is what I have implied just above, that by the return of the Jews the whole world will receive what it longs for. The rejection of them has been the means of reconciling the world to God by the preaching to the Gentiles; their reception into the Kingdom, the gathering together of the elect from the four winds of heaven, will inaugurate the final consummation, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal life that follows. 16But what ground is there for thus believing in the return of the chosen people to the Kingdom? It is the holiness of the race. When you take from the kneading trough a piece of dough and offer it to the Lord as a heave-offering, do you not consecrate the whole mass? Do not the branches of a tree receive life and nourishment from the roots? So it is with Israel. Their forefathers the Patriarchs have been consecrated to the Lord, and in them the whole race; from that stock they obtain their spiritual life, a life which must be holy as its source is holy. 17For the Church of God is like a ‘ green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit,’ as the Prophet Jeremiah described it. Its roots are the Patriarchs; its branches the people of the Lord. Some of these branches have been broken off; Israelites who by birth and descent were members of the Church. Into their place you Gentiles, by a process quite strange and unnatural, have been grafted, shoots from a wild olive, into a cultivated stock. Equally with the old branches which still remain on the tree you share in the rich sap which flows from its root. 18Do not for this reason think that you may insolently boast of the position of superiority which you occupy. If you are inclined to do so, remember that you have done nothing, that all the spiritual privileges that you possess simply belong to the stock on which you by no merit of your own have been grafted. 19But perhaps you say: ‘ That I am the favoured one is shown by this that others were cut off that I might be grafted in.’ 20I grant what you say; but consider the reason. It was owing to their want of faith that they were broken off: you on the other hand owe your firm position to your faith, not to any natural superiority. 21It is an incentive therefore not to pride, as you seem to think, but to fear. For if God did not spare the holders of the birthright, no grafted branches but the natural growth of the tree, He certainly will be no more ready to spare you, who have no such privileges to plead. 22Learn the Divine goodness, but learn and understand the Divine severity as well. Those who have fallen have experienced the severity, you the goodness; a goodness which will be continued if you cease to be self-confident and simply trust: otherwise you too may be cut off as they were. 23Nor again is the rejection of the Jews irrevocable. They can be grafted again into the stock on which they grew, if only they will give up their unbelief. For they are in God’ s hands; and God’ s power is not limited. He is able to restore them to the position from which they have fallen. 24 For consider. You are the slip cut from the olive that grew wild, and yet, by a process which you must admit to be entirely unnatural, you were grafted into the cultivated stock. If God could do this, much more can He graft the natural branches of the cultivated olive on to their own stock from which they were cut. You Gentiles have no grounds for boasting, nor have the Jews for despair. Your position is less secure than was theirs, and if they only trust in God, their salvation will be easier than was yours. 11. St. Paul has modified the question of ver. 1 so far: the rejection of Israel is only partial. But yet it is true that the rest, that is the majority, of the nation are spiritually blind. They have stumbled and sinned. Does this imply their final exclusion from the Messianic salvation? St. Paul shows that it is not so. It is only temporary and it has a Divine purpose. λέγωοὖν . A new stage in the argument. ‘ I ask then as to this majority whose state the prophets have thus described.’ The question arises immediately out of the preceding verses, but is a stage in the argument running through the whole chapter, and raised by the discussion of Israel’ s guilt in 9:30-10:21. μὴἔπταισαν , ἵναπέσωσι ; ‘ have they (i.e. those who have been hardened, ver. 8) stumbled so as to fall?’ Numquid sic offenderunt, ut caderent? Is their failure of such a character that they will be finally lost, and cut off from the Messianic salvation? ἵνα expresses the contemplated result. The metaphor in ἔπταισαν (which is often used elsewhere in a moral sense, Deuteronomy 7:25; James 2:10; James 3:2; 2 Peter 1:10) seems to be suggested by σκάδαλον of ver. 9. The meaning of the passage is given by the contrast between πταίειν and πεσεῖν ; a man who stumbles may recover himself, or he may fall completely. Hence πέσωσιν is here used of a complete and irrevocable fall. Cf. Isaiah 24:20 κατίσχυσεγὰρἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςἡἀνομία , καὶπεσεῖταικαὶοὐμὴδύνηταιἀναστῆναι : Ps. Sol. 3:13 ἔπεσενὅτιπονηρὸντὸπτῶμααὐτοῦ , καὶοὐκἀναστήσεται : Hebrews 4:11. It is no argument against this that the same word is used in vv. 22, 23 of a fall which is not irrevocable: the ethical meaning must be in each case determined by the context, and here the contrast with ἔπταισαν suggests a fall that is irrevocable. There is a good deal of controversy among grammarians as to the admission of a laxer use of ἴνα , a controversy which has a tendency to divide scholars by nations; the German grammarians with Winer at their head (§ liii. 10. 6, p. 573 E. T.) maintain that it always preserves, even in N. T. Greek, its classical meaning of purpose; on the other hand, English commentators such as Lightfoot (on Galatians 5:17), Ellicott (on 1 Thessalonians 5:4), and Evans (on 1 Corinthians 7:29) admit the laxer use. Evans says ‘ that ἴνα , like our “ that,” has three uses: (1) final (in order that he may go), (2) definitive (I advise that he go), (3) subjectively ecbatit (have they stumbled that they should fall)’ ; and it is quite clear that it is only by reading into passages a great deal which is not expressed that commentators can make ἵνα in all cases mean ‘ in order that.’ In 1 Thessalonians 5:4 ὑμεῖςδέ , ἀδελφοί , οὐκἐστὲἐνσκότει , ἵναἡἡμέραὑμᾶςὡςκλέπτηςκαταλάβῃ where Winer states that there is ‘ a Divine purpose of God,’ this is not expressed either in the words or the context. In 1 Corinthians 7:29 ὀκαιρὸςσυνεσταλμένοςἐστί , τὸλοιπὸνἴνακαὶοἱἔχοντεςγυναῖκαςὡςμὴἔχοντεςὧσι , ‘ is it probable that a state of sitting loose to worldly interests should be described as the aim or purpose of God in curtailing the season of the great tribulation?’ (Evans.) Yet Winer asserts that the words ἵνακαὶοἱἔχοντεςκ .τ .λ . express the (Divine) purpose for which ὁκαιρὸςσυνεσταλμένοςἐστί . So again in the present passage it is only a confusion of ideas that can see any purpose. If St. Paul had used a passive verb such as ἐπωρώθησαν then we might translate, ‘ have they been hardened in order that they may fall?’ and there would be no objection in logic or grammar, but as St. Paul has written ἔπταισαν , if there is a purpose in the passage it ascribes stumbling as a deliberate act undertaken with the purpose of falling. We cannot here any more than elsewhere read in a Divine purpose where it is neither implied nor expressed, merely for the sake of defending an arbitrary grammatical rule. μὴγέοιτο . St. Paul indignantly denies that the final fall of Israel was the contemplated result of their transgression. The result of it has already been the calling of the Gentiles, and the final purpose is the restoration of the Jews also. τῷαὐτῶνπαραπτώματι : ‘ by their false step,’ continuing the metaphor of ἔπταισαν . ἡσωτηρίατοῖςἔθνεσιν . St. Paul is here stating an historical fact. His own preaching to the Gentiles had been caused definitely by the rejection of his message on the part of the Jews. Acts 13:45-48; cf. 8:4; 11:19; 28:28. εἰςτὸπαραζηλῶσαιαὐτούς : ‘ to provoke them (the Jews) to jealousy.’ This idea had already been suggested (10:19) by the quotation from Deuteronomy Ἐγὼπαραζηλώσωὑμᾶςἐπ ʼ οὐκἔθνει . St. Paul in these two statements sketches the lines on which the Divine action is explained and justified. God’ s purpose has been to use the disobedience of the Jews in order to promote the calling of the Gentiles, and He will eventually arouse the Jews to give up their unbelief by emulation of the Gentiles. Εἶτακατασκευάζει , ὄτιτὸπταῖσμααὐτῶνδιπλῆνοἰκονομίανἐργάζεται · τάτεγὰρἔθνηἀντεισάγεικαὶαὐτοὺςδὲπαρακνίζονκαὶἐπθίζονἐριστρέφει , μὴφέρονταςτὴντοσαύτηντῶνἐθνῶντιμήν . Euthym.-Zig. 12. St. Paul strengthens his statement by an argument drawn from the spiritual character of the Jewish people. If an event which has been so disastrous to the nation has had such a beneficial result, how much more beneficial will be the result of the entrance of the full complement of the nation into the Messianic kingdom? πλοῦτοςκόσμου : the enriching of the world by the throwing open to it of the kingdom of the Messiah: cf. 10:12 ὁγὰραὐτὸςΚύριοςπάντων , πλουτῶνεἰςπάνταςτοὺςἐπικαλουμένουςαὐτόν . τὸἤττημααὐτῶν : ‘ their defeat.’ From one point of view the unbelief of the Jews was a transgression , from another it was a defeat, for they were repulsed from the Messianic kingdom, since they had failed to obtain what they sought. ἤττημα occurs only twice elsewhere: in Isaiah 31:8 οἱδὲνεανίσκοιἔσονταιεἰςἥττημα , πέτρᾳγὰρπεριληφθήσονταιὡςχάρακικαὶἡττηθήσονται : and in 1 Corinthians 6:7 ἤδημὲνοὖνὅλωςἤττημαὑμῖνἐστιν , ὅτικρίματαἔχετεμεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν . The correct interpretation of the word as derived from the verb would be a ‘ defeat,’ and this is clearly the meaning in Isaiah. It can equally well apply in 1 Cor., whether it be translated a ‘ defeat’ in that it lowers the Church in the opinion of the world, or a ‘ moral defeat,’ hence a ‘ defect,’ The same meaning suits this passage. The majority of commentators however translate it here ‘ diminution’ (see especially Gif. Sp. Comm. pp. 194, 203), in order to make the antithesis to πλήρωμα exact. But as Field points out (Otium Norv. iii. 97) there is no reason why the sentence should not be rhetorically faulty, and it is not much improved by giving ἤττημα the meaning of ‘ impoverishment’ as opposed to ‘ replenishment.’ τὸπλήρωμααὐτῶν : ‘ their complement,’ ‘ their full and completed number.’ See on 11:25. The exact meaning of πλήρωμα has still to be ascertained. 1. There is a long and elaborate note on the word in Lft. Col. p. 323 ff. He starts with asserting that ‘ substantives in -μα formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action: but in any case they give the result of the agency involved in the corresponding verb.’ He then takes the verb πληροῦν and shows that it has two senses, (i) ‘ to fill,’ (ii) ‘ to fulfil’ or ‘ complete’ ; and deriving the fundamental meaning of the word πλήρωμα from the latter usage makes it mean in the N. T. always ‘ that which is completed.’ 2. A somewhat different view of the termination -μα is given by the late T. S. Evans in a note on 1 Corinthians 5:6 in the Sp. Comm. (part of which is quoted above on Romans 4:2.) This would favour the active sense id quod implet or adimplet, which appears to be the proper sense of the English word ‘ complement’ (see the Philological Society’ s Eng. Dict. s. v.). Perhaps the term ‘ concrete’ would most adequately express the normal meaning of the termination. 13, 14. These two verses present a good deal of difficulty, of rather a subtle kind. 1. What is the place occupied by the words ὑμῖνδὲλέγωκ .τ .λ . in the argument? (i) Some (Hort, WH. Lips.) place here the beginning of a new paragraph, so Dr. Hort writes: ‘ after a passage on the rejection of unbelieving Israel, and on God`s ultimate purpose involved in it, St. Paul turns swiftly round.’ But an examination of the context will show that there is really no break in the ideas. The thought raised by the question in ver. 11 runs through the whole paragraph to ver. 24, in fact really to ver. 32, and the reference to the Gentiles in ver. 17 ff. is clearly incidental. Again ver. 15 returns directly to ver. 12, repeating the same idea, but in a way to justify also ver. 13. (ii) These verses in their appeal to the Gentiles are therefore incidental, almost parenthetic, and are introduced to show that this argument has an application to Gentiles as well as Jews. 2. But what is the meaning of μὲνοὖν (that this is the correct reading see below)? It is usual to take οὖν in its ordinary sense of therefore, and then to explain μέν by supposing an anacoluthon. or by finding the contrast in some words that follow. So Gif. ‘ St. Paul, with his usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery of Greek, implies that this is but one part of his ministry, chosen as he was to bear Christ’ s name “ before Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” Winer and others find the antithesis in εἴπωςπαραζηλώσω . But against these views may be urged two reasons, (i) the meaning of μὲνοὖν . The usage at any rate in the N. T. is clearly laid down by Evans on 1 Corinthians 6:3 (Speaker’ s Comm. p. 285), ‘ the οὖν may signify then or therefore only when the μέν falls back upon the preceding word, because it is expectant of a coming δέ or ἀτάρ , ’ otherwise, as is pointed out, the μέν must coalesce with the οὖν , and the idea is either ‘ corrective and substitutive of a new thought, or confirmative of what has been stated and addititious.’ Now if there is this second use of μὲνοὖν possible, unless the δέ is clearly expressed the mind naturally would suggest it, especially in St. Paul’ s writings where μὲνοὖν is generally so used: and as a matter of fact no instance is quoted in the N. T. where οὖν in μὲνοὖν has its natural force in a case where it is not followed by δέ (Hebrews 9:1 quoted by Winer does not apply, see Westcott ad loc.). But (ii) further οὖν is not the particle required here. What St. Paul requires is not an apology for referring to the Gentiles, but an apology to the Gentiles for devoting so much attention to the Jews. If these two points are admitted the argument becomes much clearer. St. Paul remembers that the majority of his readers are Gentiles; he has come to a point where what he has to say touches them nearly; he therefore shows parenthetically how his love for his countrymen, and his zeal in carrying out his mission to the Gentiles, combine towards producing the same end. ‘ Do not think that what I am saying has nothing to do with you Gentiles. It makes me even more zealous in my work for you. That ministry of mine to the Gentiles I do honour to and exalt, seeking in this way if perchance I may be able to move my countrymen to jealousy.’ Then in ver. 15 he shows how this again reacts upon the general scheme of his ministry. ‘ And this I do, because their return to the Church will bring on that final consummation for which we all look forward.’ 13. ὑμῖνδὲλέγωκ .τ .λ . The δέ expresses a slight contrast in thought, and the ὑμῖν is emphatic: ‘ But it is to you Gentiles I am speaking. Nay more, so far as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry: if thus by any means,’ &c. ἐθνῶνἀπόστολος : comp. Acts 22:21; Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:7. τὴνδιακονίανμουδοξάζω . He may glorify his ministry, either (i) by his words and speech; if he teaches everywhere the duty of preaching to the Gentiles he exalts that ministry: or (ii), perhaps better, by doing all in his power to make it successful: comp. 1 Corinthians 12:26 εἴτεδοξάζεταιμέλος . This verse and the references to the Gentiles that follow seem to show conclusively that St. Paul expected the majority of his readers to be Gentiles. Comp. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 22 ‘ Though the Greek is ambiguous the context appears to me decisive for taking ὑμῖν as the Church itself, and not as a part of it. In all the long previous discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third person. In the half chapter that follows the Gentiles are constantly spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed to Gentiles: to Christians who had once been Jews not a word is addressed.’ The variations in reading in the particles which occur in this verse suggest that considerable difficulties were felt in its interpretation. For ὑμῖνδέ א A B P minusc. pauc., Syrr. Boh. Arm., Theodrt. cod. Jo.-Damasc.; we find in C ὑμῖνοὖν ; while the TR with D E F G L &c. Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. has ὑμῖνγάρ . Again μὲνοὖν is read by א A B C P, Boh., Cyr.-Al. Jo.-Damasc.; μέν only by TR with L &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c. (so Meyer); while the Western group D E F G and some minuscules omit both. It may be noticed in the Epp. of St. Paul that wherever μὲνοὖν or μενοῦνγε occur there is considerable variation in the reading. Romans 9:20: μενοῦνγε א A K L P &c., Syrr. Boh.; μὲνοἶν B; omit altogether D F G 10:18 μενοῦνγε om. F G d, Orig.-lat. 1 Corinthians 6:4: μὲνοὖν most authorities; F G γοῦν . 6:7: μὲνοὖν A B C &c.; μέν א D Boh. Philippians 3:8: μὲνοὖν B D E F G K L &c.; μενοῦνγε א A P Boh. The Western MSS. as a rule avoid the expression, while B is consistent in preferring it. 14. εἴπωςπαραζηλώσω . εἴπως is used here interrogatively with the aorist subjunctive (cp. Philippians 3:10, Philippians 3:11). The grammarians explain the expression by saying that we are to understand with it σκοπῶν . εἶπως occurs Acts 27:12 with the optative, Romans 1:10 with the future. 15. The two previous verses have been to a certain extent parenthetical; in this verse the Apostle continues the argument of ver. 12, repeating in a stronger form what he has there said, but in such a way as to explain the statement made in vv. 13, 14, that by thus caring for his fellow-countrymen he is fulfilling his mission to the Gentile world. The casting away of the Jews has meant the reconciliation of the world to Christ. Henceforth there is no more a great wall of partition separating God’ s people from the rest of the world. This is the first step in the founding of the Messianic kingdom; but when all the people of Israel shall have come in there will be the final consummation of all things, and this means the realization of the hope which the reconciliation of the world has made possible.ἀποβολή : the rejection of the Jews for their faithlessness. The meaning of the word is defined by the contrasted πρόσληψις . καταλλαγὴκόσμου : cf. vv. 10, 11. The reconciliation was the immediate result of St. Paul’ s ministry, which he describes elsewhere (2 Corinthians 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19) as a ministry of reconciliation; its final result, the hope to which it looks forward, is salvation : the realization of this hope is what every Gentile must long for, and therefore whatever will lead to its fulfilment must be part of St. Paul’ s ministry. πρόσληψις : the reception of the Jews into the kingdom of the Messiah. The noun is not used elsewhere in the N. T., but the meaning is shown by the parallel use of the verb (cf. 14:3; 15:7). ζωὴἐκνεκρῶν . The meaning of this phrase must be determined by that of καταλλαγὴκόσμου . The argument demands something much stronger than that, which may be a climax to the section. It may either be (1) used in a figurative sense, cf. Ezekiel 37:3 ff.; Luke 15:24, Luke 15:32 ὁἀδελφόςσουοὗτοςνεκρὸςἦν , καὶἔζησε · καὶἀπολωλώς , καὶεὑρέθη . In this sense it would mean the universal diffusion of the Gospel message and a great awakening of spiritual life as the result of it. Or (2), it may mean the ‘ general Resurrection’ as a sign of the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In this sense it would make a suitable antithesis to καταλλαγή . The reconciliation of the heathen and their reception into the Church on earth was the first step in a process which led ultimately to their σωτηρία . It gave them grounds for hoping for that which they should enjoy in the final consummation. And this consummation would come when the kingdom was completed. In all contemporary Jewish literature the Resurrection (whether partial or general) is a sign of the inauguration of the new era. Schü rer, Geschichte, &c. ii. p. 460; Jubilees xxiii. 29 ‘ And at that time the Lord will heal his servants, and they will arise and will see great peace and will cast out their enemies; and the just shall see it and be thankful and rejoice in joy to all eternity.’ Enoch Lev_1 (p. 139 ed. Charles) ‘ And in those days will the earth also give back those who are treasured up within it, and Sheô l also will give back that which it has received, and hell will give back that which it owes. And he will choose the righteous and holy from among them: for the day of their redemption has drawn nigh.’ As in the latter part of this chapter St. Paul seems to be largely influenced by the language and forms of the current eschatology, it is very probable that the second interpretation is the more correct; cf. Origen viii. 9, p. 257 Tunc enim erit assumtio Israel, quando iam et mortui vitam recipient et mundus ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mortales immortalitate donabuntur; and see below ver. 26. 16. St. Paul gives in this verse the grounds of his confidence in the future of Israel. This is based upon the holiness of the Patriarchs from whom they are descended and the consecration to God which has been the result of this holiness. His argument is expressed in two different metaphors, both of which however have the same purpose. ἀπαρχὴ … φύραμα . The metaphor in the first part of the verse is taken from Numbers 15:19, Numbers 15:20 ‘ It shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough (ἀπαρχὴνφυράματος LXX) ye shall offer up a cake for an heave offering: as ye do the heave offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it.’ By the offering of the first-fruits, the whole mass was considered to be consecrated; and so the holiness of the Patriarchs consecrated the whole people from whom they came. That the meaning of the ἀπαρχή is the Patriarchs (and not Christ or the select remnant) is shown by the parallelism with the second half of the verse, and by the explanation of St. Paul’ s argument given in ver. 28 ἀγαπητοὶδιὰτοὺςπατέρας . ἁγία : ‘ consecrated to God as the holy nation’ in the technical sense of ἃγιος , cf. 1:7. ῥίζα … κλάδοι . The same idea expressed under a different image. Israel the Divine nation is looked upon as a tree; its roots are the Patriarchs; individual Israelites are the branches. As then the Patriarchs are holy, so are the Israelites who belong to the stock of the tree, and are nourished by the sap which flows up to them from those roots. 17-24. The metaphor used in the second part of ver. 16 suggests an image which the Apostle developes somewhat elaborately. The image of an olive tree to describe Israel is taken from the Prophets; Jeremiah 11:16 ‘ The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult He hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken’ ; Hosea 14:6 ‘ His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon.’ Similar is the image of the vine in Isaiah 5:7; Psalms 80:8; and (of the Christian Church) in John 15:1ff. The main points in this simile are the following:— The olive = the Church of God, looked at as one continuous body; the Christian Church being the inheritor of the privileges of the Jewish Church. The root or stock = that stock from which Jews and Christians both alike receive their nourishment and strength, viz. the Patriarchs, for whose faith originally Israel was chosen (cf. vv. 28,29). The branches are the individual members of the Church who derive their nourishment and virtue from the stock or body to which they belong. These are of two kinds: The original branches; these represent the Jews. Some have been cut off from their want of faith, and no longer derive any nourishment from the stock. The branches of the wild olive which have been grafted in. These are the Gentile Christians, who, by being so grafted in, have come to partake of the richness and virtue of the olive stem. From this simile St. Paul draws two lessons. (1) The first is to a certain extent incidental. It is a warning to the heathen against undue exaltation and arrogance. By an entirely unnatural process they have been grafted into the tree. Any virtue that they may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue of the stock to which they belong; and moreover at any moment they may be cut off. It will be a less violent process to cut off branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cut off the original branches. But (2)— and this is the more important result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up in ver. 24— if God has had the power against all nature to graft in branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the branches which have been cut off. St. Paul thus deduces from his simile consolation for Israel, but incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the Church— a warning made necessary by the great importance ascribed to them in ver. 11f. Israel had been rejected for their sake. 17. τινές : a meiosis. Cf. 3:3 τίγὰρεἰἠπίστησάντινες ; Τινὲςδὲεἶπε , παραμυθούμενοςαὐτούς , ὡςπολλάκιςεἰρήκαμεν , ἐπεὶπολλῷπλείουςοἱἀπιστήσαντες . Euthym.-Zig. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ THE NEW LIFE 12:1., 12:2. With this wonderful programme of salvation before you offer to God a sacrifice, not of slaughtered beasts, but of your living selves, your own bodies, pure and free from blemish, your spiritual service. Do not take pattern by the age in which you live, but undergo complete mora. reformation with the will of God for your standard. 12-15:12. We now reach the concluding portion of the Epistle, that devoted to the practical application of the previous discussion. An equally marked division between the theoretical and the practical portion is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians (chap. 4); and one similar, although not so strongly marked, in Galatians (5:1 or 2); Colossians (3:1); 1 Thessalonians (4:1); 2 Thessalonians (3:6). A comparison with the Epistles of St. Peter and St. John will show how special a characteristic of St. Paul is this method of construction. The main idea running through the whole section seems to be that of peace and unity for the Church in all relations both internal and external. As St. Paul in the earlier portion of the Epistle, looking back on the controversies through which he has passed, solves the problems which had been presented in the interests no longer of victory, but of peace, so in his practical exhortation he lays the foundation of unity and harmony on deep and broad principles. A definite division may be made between chaps. 12, 13, in which the exhortations are general in character, and 14-15, in which they arise directly out of the controversies which are disturbing the Church. Yet even these are treated from a general point of view, and not in relation to any special circumstances. In the first section, the Apostle does not appear to follow any definite logical order, but touches on each subject as it suggests itself or is suggested by the previous ideas; it may be roughly divided as follows: (1) a general introduction on the character of the Christian life (12:1, 2); (ii) the right use of spiritual gifts especially in relation to Church order (3-8); (iii) a series of maxims mainly illustrating the great principle of ἀγάπη (9-21); (iv) duties towards rulers and those in authority (13:1-7); (v) a special exhortation to ἀγάπη , as including all other commandments (8-10); (vi) an exhortation to a spiritual life on the ground of the near approach of the παρουσία (11-14). Tertullian quotes the following verses of this chapter from Marcion: 9, 10a, 12, 14b, 16b, 17a, 18, 19. There is no evidence that any portion was omitted, but ver. 18 may have stood after ver. 19, and in the latter γέγραπται is naturally cut off and a γάρ inserted. The other variations noted by Zahn seem less certain (Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, p. 518; adv. Marc. v.14). 1. παρακαλῶοὖν . A regular formula in St. Paul: Ephesians 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:16. As in the passage in the Ephesians, the οὖν refers not so much to what immediately precedes as to the result of the whole previous argument. ‘ As you are justified by Christ, and put in a new relation to God, I exhort you to live in accordance with that relation.’ But although St. Paul is giving the practical results of his whole previous argument, yet (as often with him, cf. 11:11) the words are directly led up to by the conclusion of the previous chapter and the narration of the wisdom and mercy of God. διὰτῶνοἰκτιρμῶντοῦΘεοῦ . Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:3 ὁπατὴρτῶνοἰκτιρμῶν . Οἰκτιρμός in the singular only occurs once (Colossians 3:12); the plural is a Hebraism directly derived from the LXX . There is a reference to the preceding chapter, ‘ As God has been so abundantly merciful to both Jews and Greeks, offer a sacrifice to Him, and let that sacrifice be one that befits His holiness.’ παραστῆσαι : a tech. term (although not in the O. T.) for presenting a sacrifice: cf. Ant. IV. vi. 4 βωμούςτεἐκέλευσενἑπτὰδείμασθαιτὸνβασιλέα , καὶτοσούτουςταύρουςκαὶκριοὺςπαραστῆναι . The word means to ‘ place beside,’ ‘ present’ for any purpose, and so is used of the presentation of Christ in the temple (Luke 2:22), of St. Paul presenting his converts (Colossians 1:28), or Christ presenting His Church (Ephesians 5:27), or of the Christian himself (cf. Romans 6:13 ff.). In all these instances the idea of ‘ offering’ (which is one part of sacrifice) is present. τὰσώματαὑμῶν . To be taken literally, like τὰμέληὑμῶν in 6:13, as is shown by the contrast with τοῦνοός in ver. 2. ‘ Just as the sacrifice in all ancient religions must be clean and without blemish, so we must offer bodies to God which are holy and free from the stains of passion.’ Christianity does not condemn the body, but demands that the body shall be purified and be united with Christ. Our members are to be ὅπλαδικαιοσύνηςτῷΘεῷ (6:13); our bodies are to be μέληΧριστοῦ (1 Corinthians 6:15); they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (ib. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in body and in spirit (ib. vii. 34). There is some doubt as to the order of the words εὐάρεστοντῷΘεῷ . They occur in this order in א c and later MSS., , and Fathers; τῷΘεῷεὐ . in א A P, The former is the more usual expression, but St. Paul may have written τῷΘεῷεὐ . to prevent ambiguity, for if τῷΘεῷ comes at the end of the sentence there is some doubt as to whether it should not be taken with παραστῆσαι . θυσίανζῶσαν : cf. 6:13 παραστήσατεἑαυτοὺςτῷΘεῷ , ὡσεὶἐκνεκρῶνζῶντας . The bodies presented will be those of men to whom newness of life has been given by union with the risen Christ. The relation to the Jewish rite is partly one of distinction, partly of analogy. The Jewish sacrifice implies slaughter, the Christian continued activity and life; but as in the Jewish rite all ritual requirements must be fulfilled to make the sacrifice acceptable to God, so in the Christian sacrifice our bodies must be holy, without spot or blemish. ἁγίαν , ‘ pure,’ ‘ holy.’ ‘ free from stain,’ 1 Peter 1:16; Leviticus 19:2. So the offering of the Gentiles (Romans 15:16) is ἡγιασμένηἐνΠν . Ἁγ (See on 1:7.) εὐάρεστοντῷΘεῷ : cf. Philippians 4:18 δεξάμενοςπαρὰἘπαφροδίτουτὰπαρ ʼ ὑμῶν , ὀσμὴνεὐωδίας , θυσίανδεκτήν , εὐάρεστοντῷΘεῷ : Romans 14:18; ‘ Well-pleasing to God.’ The formal sacrifices of the old covenant might not be acceptable to God: cf. Psalms 51:16, Psalms 51:17. τὴνλογικὴνλατρείανὑμῶν . Acc. in apposition to the idea of the sentence. Winer, § lix. 9, p. 669, E. T.: cf. 1 Timothy 2:6 and the note on 8:3 above. A service to God such as befits the reason , i. e. a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational animal: cf. 1 Peter 2:5. The writer of Test. XII. Pat. Lev_3 seems to combine a reminiscence of this passage with Philippians 4:18: speaking of the angels, he says προσφέρουσιδὲΚυρίῳὀσμὴνεὐωδίαςλογικὴνκαὶἀναίμακτονπροσφοράν . We may notice the metaphorical use St. Paul makes of sacrificial language: ἐπὶτῇθυσίᾳκαὶλειτουργίᾳτῆςπίστεωςὑμῶν Philippians 2:17; ὀσμὴεὐωδίας (Leviticus 1:9) Philippians 4:18; ὀσμή 2 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 2:16; λειτουργός , ἱερουργοῦντα , προσφορά Romans 15:16. This language passed gradually and almost imperceptibly into liturgical use, and hence acquired new shades of meaning (see esp. Lightfoot, Clement, i. p. 386 sq.). 2. συσχηματίζεσθε̣̣̣μεταμορφοῦθε , ‘ Do not adopt the external and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your inmost nature.’ On the distinction of σχῆμα and μορφή preserved in these compounds see Lightfoot, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. iii. 1857, p. 114, Philippians, p. 125. Comp. ad loc., ‘ He says not change the fashion, but be transformed, to show that the world’ s ways are a fashion, but virtue’ s not a fashion, but a kind of real form, with a natural beauty of its own, not needing the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner appear than they go to naught. For all these things, even before they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.’ There is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the imperatives in this verse, B L P all the versions ( Boh. Syrr.), and most Fathers, against A D F G (א varies). The evidence of the Versions and of the Fathers, some of whom paraphrase, is particularly important, as it removes the suspicion of itacism. τῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ , ‘ this world,’ ‘ this life’ used in a moral sense. When the idea of a future Messianic age became a part of the Jewish Theology, Time, χρόνος , was looked upon as divided into a succession of ages, αἰῶνες , periods or cycles of great but limited duration; and the present age was contrasted with the age to come, or the age of the Messiah (cf. Schü rer, § 29. 9), a contrast very common among early Christians: Matthew 12:32 οὒτεἐντούτῳτῷαἰῶνιοὕτεἐντῷμέλλοντι : Luc. xx. 34, 35 οἱυἱοὶτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου̣̣̣οἱδὲκαταξιωθέντεςτοῦαἰῶνοςἐκείνουτυχεῖν : Ephesians 1:21 οὐμόνονἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳἀλλὰκαὶἐντῷμέλλοντι . So Enoch xvi. 1 μέχριςἡμέραςτελειώσεωςτῆςκρίσεωςτῆςμεγάλης , ἐνᾗὁαἰὼνὁμέγαςτελεσθήσεται . As the distinction between the present period and the future was one between that which is transitory and that which is eternal, between the imperfect and the perfect, between that in which οἱἅρχοντεςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου (1 Corinthians 2:6) have power and that in which ὁβασιλεὺςτῶναἰώνων (Enoch xii.3) will rule, αἰών like κόσμος in St. John’ s writings, came to have a moral significance: Galatians 1:4 ἐκτοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦἐνεστῶτοςπονηροῦ : Ephesians 2:2 περιεπατήσατεκατὰτὸναἰῶνατοῦκόσμουτούτου : and so in this passage. From the idea of a succession of ages came the expression εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας (11:36), or αἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων to express eternity, as an alternative for the older form εἰςτὸναἰῶνα . The latter, which is the ordinary and original O. T. form, arises from the older and original meaning of the Hebrew ‘ ô lam, ‘ the hidden time,’ ‘ futurity,’ and contains rather the idea of an unending period. τῇἀνακαινώσειτοῦνοός : our bodies are to be pure and free from all the stains of passion; our ‘ mind’ and ‘ intellect’ are to be no longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Titus 3:5 διὰλουτροῦπαλιγγενεσίαςκαὶἀνακαινώσεωςΠνεύματοςἉγίου : 2 Corinthians 4:16: Colossians 3:10. On the relation of ἀνακαίνωσις , ‘ renewal,’ to παλιγγενεσία see Trench, Syn. § 18. By this renewal the intellectual or rational principle will no longer be a νοῦςσαρκός (Colossians 2:18), but will be filled with the Spirit and coincident with the highest part of human nature (1 Corinthians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 2:16). δοκιμάζειν : cf. 2:18; Philippians 1:10. The result of this purification is to make the intellect, which is the seat of moral judgement, true and exact in judging on spiritual and moral questions. τὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦ , κ .τ .λ ., ‘ That which is in accordance with God’ s will.’ This is further defined by the three adjectives which follow. It includes all that is implied in moral principle, in the religious aim, and the ideal perfection which is the goal of life. THE RIGHT USE OF GIFTS 3-8. Let every Christian be content with his proper place and functions. The society to which we belong is a single body with many members all related one to another. Hence the prophet should not strain after effects for which his faith is insufficient; the minister, the teacher, the exhorter, should each be intent on his special duty. The almsgiver, the person in authority, the doer of kindness, should each cultivate a spirit appropriate to what he does. 3. St. Paul begins by an instance in which the need of an enlightened mind is most necessary; namely, the proper bearing of a Christian in the community, and the right use of spiritual gifts. διὰτῆςχάριτοςκ .τ .λ . gives emphasis by an appeal to Apostolic authority (cf. 1:5). It is not merely a question of the spiritual progress of the individual, for when St. Paul is speaking of that he uses exhortation (ver. 1), but of the discipline and order of the community; this is a subject which demands the exercise of authority as well as of admonition. παντὶτῷὄντι An emphatic appeal to every member of the Christian community, for every one has some spiritual gift. μὴὑπερφρονεῖν , ‘ not to be high-minded above what one ought to be minded, but to direct one’ s mind to sobriety.’ Notice the play on words ὑπερφρονεῖν̣̣̣φρονεῖν̣̣̣φρονεῖν̣̣̣σωφρονεῖν . The φρονεῖνεἰςτὸσωφρονεῖν would be the fruit of the enlightened intellect as opposed to the φρόνηματῆςσαρκός (8:6). ἑκάστῳ is after ἐμέρισε , not in apposition to παντὶτῷὄντι , and its prominent position gives the idea of diversity; for the order, cp. 1 Corinthians 7:17. ‘ According to the measure of faith which God has given each man.’ The wise and prudent man will remember that his position in the community is dependent not on any merit of his own, but on the measure of his faith, and that faith is the gift of God. Faith ‘ being the sign and measure of the Christian life’ is used here for all those gifts which are given to man with or as the result of his faith. Two points are emphasized, the diversity ἑκάστῳ̣̣̣μέτρον , and the fact that this diversity depends upon God: cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7 ἀλλ ʼ ἕκαστοςἴδιονἔχειχάρισμαἐκΘεοῦ , ὁμὲνοὕτως , ὁδὲοὕτως . 12:4., 12:5. Modesty and sobriety and good judgement are necessary because of the character of the community: it is an organism or corporate body in which each person has his own duty to perform for the well-being of the whole and therefore of himself. This comparison of a social organism to a body was very common among ancient writers, and is used again and again by St. Paul to illustrate the character of the Christian community: see 1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 1:18. The use here is based upon that in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. In the Epistles of the Captivity it is another side of the idea that is expounded, the unity of the Church in Christ as its head. 12:5. τὸδὲκαθ ʼ εἷς . An idiomatic expression found in later Greek. Cf. Mark 14:19 εἷςκαθ ʼ εἷς : John 8:9: 3 Macc. 5:34 ὁκαθ ʼ εἷςδὲτῶνφίλων : Lucian Soloecista 9; H. E. X. iv, εἷςκαθ ʼ εἷς was probably formed on the model of ἓνκαθ ʼ ἕν , and then καθ ʼ εἷς came to be treated adverbially and written as one word: hence it could be used, as here, with a neuter article. 6-13. ἔχοντεςδὲχαρίσματα , κ .τ .λ . These words may be taken grammatically either (1) as agreeing with the subject of ἐσμέν , a comma being put at μέλη , or (2) as the beginning of a new sentence and forming the subject of a series of verbs supplied with the various sentences that follow; this is decidedly preferable, for in the previous sentence the comparison is grammatically finished, and ἔχοντεςδέ suggests the beginning of a new sentence. Two methods of construction are also possible for the words κατὰτὴνἀναλογίαντῆςπίστεως̣̣̣ἐντῇδιακονίᾳ , &c. Either they must be taken as dependent on ἔχοντες , or a verb must be supplied with each and the sentences become exhortations. (1) If the first construction be taken the passage will run, ‘ So are we all one body in Christ, but individually members one of another, having gifts which are different according to the grace which is given us, whether we have prophecy according to the proportion of faith, or a function of ministry in matters of ministration, or whether a man is a teacher in the exercise of functions of teaching, or one who exhorteth in exhortation, one who giveth with singleness of purpose, one who zealously provides, one who showeth mercy cheerfully.’ (2) According to the second interpretation we must translate ‘ having gifts which vary according to the grace given us,— be it prophecy let us use it in proportion to the faith given us, be it ministry let us use it in ministry,’ &c. That the latter is preferable is shown by the difficulty of keeping up the former interpretation to the end; few commentators have the hardihood to carry it on as far as ver. 8; nor is it really easier in ver. 7, where the additions ἐντῇδιακονίᾳ are very otiose if they merely qualify ἔχοντες understood. In spite therefore of the somewhat harsh ellipse, the second construction must be adopted throughout. 12:6. κατὰτὴνἀναλογίαντῆςπίστεως . The meaning of πίστεως here is suggested by that in ver. 3. A man’ s gifts depend upon the measure of faith allotted to him by God, and so he must use and exercise these gifts in proportion to the faith that is in him. If he be σώφρων and his mind is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, he will judge rightly his capacity and power; if, on the other hand, his mind be carnal, he will try to distinguish himself vain-gloriously and disturb the peace of the community. Liddon, with most of the Latin Fathers and many later commentators, takes πίστεως objectively: ‘ The majestic proportion of the (objective) Faith is before him, and, keeping his eye on it, he avoids private crotchets and wild fanaticisms, which exaggerate the relative importance of particular truths to the neglect of others.’ But this interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning he has himself given to πίστις in ver. 3, and gives a sense to ἀναλογίαν which it will not bear; the difficulty being concealed by the ambiguity of the word ‘ proportion’ in English. 7. διακονίαν , ‘ if we have the gift of ministry, let us use it in ministering to the community, and not attempt ambitiously to prophesy or exhort.’ διακονία was used either generally of all Christian ministrations (so Romans 11:13; 1 Corinthians 12:5; Ephesians 4:12, &c.) or specially of the administration of alms and attendance to bodily wants (1 Corinthians 16:15; 2 Corinthians 8:4, &c.). Here the opposition to προφητεία , διδασκαλία , παράκλησις seems to demand the more confined sense. ὁδιδάσκων . St. Paul here substitutes a personal phrase because ἔχεινδιδασκαλίαν would mean, not to impart, but to receive instruction. 8. ὁμεταδιδούς : the man who gives alms of his own substance is to do it in singleness of purpose and not with mixed motives, with the thought of ostentation or reward. With ὁμεταδιδούς , the man who gives of his own, while ὁδιαδιδούς is the man who distributes other persons’ gifts, comp. Test. XII. Patr. Iss. 7 παντὶἀνθρώπῳὀδυνομένῳσυνεστέναξα , καὶπτωχῷμετέδωκατὸνἄρτονμου . ἁπλότης . The meaning of this word is illustrated best by Test. XII. Patr. Issachar, or περὶἁπλότητος . Issachar is represented as the husbandman, who lived simply and honestly on his land. ‘ And my father blessed me, seeing that I walk in simplicity . And I was not inquisitive in my actions, nor wicked and envious towards my neighbour. I did not speak evil of any one, nor attack a man’ s life, but I walked with a single eye . … To every poor and every afflicted man I provided the good things of the earth, in simplicity of heart. … The simple man doth not desire gold, doth not ravish his neighbour, doth not care for all kinds of dainty meats, doth not wish for diversity of clothing, doth not promise himself length of days, he receiveth only the will of God … he walketh in uprightness of life, and beholdeth all things in simplicity .’ Issachar is the honourable, hardworking, straightforward farmer; open-handed and open-hearted, giving out of compassion and in singleness of purpose, not from ambition. The word is used by St. Paul alone in the N. T., and was specially suited to describe the generous unselfish character of Christian almsgiving; and hence occurs in one or two places almost with the signification of liberality, 2 Corinthians 9:11, 2 Corinthians 9:13; just as ‘ liberality’ in English has come to have a secondary meaning, and δικαιοσύνη in Hellenistic Greek (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 49). Such specialization is particularly natural in the East, where large-hearted generosity is a popular virtue, and where such words as ‘ good’ may be used simply to mean munificent. ὁπροϊστάμενος , the man that presides, or governs in any position, whether ecclesiastical or other. The word is used of ecclesiastical officials, 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 67; and of a man ruling his family (1 Timothy 3:4, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 3:12), and need not be any further defined. Zeal and energy are the natural gifts required of any ruler. ὁἐλεῶν . ‘ Let any man or woman who performs deeds of mercy in the church, do so brightly and cheerfully.’ The value of brightness in performing acts of kindness has become proverbial, Ecclus. 32:11. (11) ἐνπάσῃδόσειἱλάρωσοντὸπρόσωπόνσου : Proverbs 22:8 ἄνδραἱλαρὸνκαὶδότηνεὐλογεῖὁΘεός (quoted 2 Corinthians 9:7); but just as singleminded sincerity became an eminently Christian virtue, so cheerfulness in all the paths of life, a cheerfulness which springs from a warm heart, and a pure conscience and a serene mind set on something above this world, was a special characteristic of the early Christian (Acts 2:46; Acts 5:41; Philippians 1:4, Philippians 1:18; Philippians 2:18, &c. 1 Thessalonians 5:16). Spiritual Gifts The word χάρισμα (which is almost purely Pauline) is used of those special endowments which come to every Christian as the result of God’ s free favour to men and of the consequent gift of faith. In Romans 5:15, Romans 6:13, indeed, it has a wider signification, meaning the free gift on the part of God to man of forgiveness of sins and eternal life, but elsewhere it appears always to be used for those personal endowments which are the gifts of the Spirit. In this connexion it is not confined to special or conspicuous endowments or to special offices. There are, indeed, τὰχαρίσματατὰμείζονα (1 Corinthians 12:31), which are those apparently most beneficial to the community; but in the same Epistle the word is also used of the individual fitness for the married or the unmarried state (1 Corinthians 7:7); and in Romans 1:13 it is used of the spiritual advantage which an Apostle might confer on the community. So again, χαρίσματα include miraculous powers, but no distinction is made between them and non-miraculous gifts. In the passage before us there is the same combination of very widely differing gifts; the Apostle gives specimens (if we may express it so) of various Christian endowments; it is probable that some of them were generally if not always the function of persons specially set apart for the purpose (although not perhaps necessarily holding ecclesiastical office), others would not be confined to any one office, and many might be possessed by the same person. St. Paul’ s meaning is: By natural endowments, strengthened with the gifts of the Spirit, you have various powers and capacities: in the use of these it is above all necessary for the good of the community that you should show a wise and prudent judgement, not attempting offices or work for which you are not fitted, nor marring your gifts by exercising them in a wrong spirit. This being the meaning of χαρίσματα and St. Paul’ s purpose in this chapter, interpretations of it, as of the similar passage (chap. 12) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which have attempted to connect spiritual gifts more closely with the Christian ministry are unfounded. These are of two characters. One, that of Neander, maintains that in the original Church there were no ecclesiastical officers at all but only χαρίσματα , and that as spiritual gifts died out, regularly appointed officers took the place of those who possessed them. The other finds, or attempts to find, an ecclesiastical office for each gift of the Spirit mentioned in this chapter and the parallel passage of the Corinthians, or at any rate argues that there must have been προφῆται , διδάσκαλοι &c., existing as church officers in the Corinthian and Roman communities. Neither of these is a correct deduction from the passages under consideration. In dealing with the χαρίσματα St. Paul is discussing a series of questions only partially connected with the Christian ministry. Every church officer would, we may presume, be considered to have χαρίσματα which would fit him for the fulfilment of such an office; but most, if not all, Christians would also have χαρίσματα . The two questions therefore are on different planes which partially intersect, and deductions from these chapters made in any direction as to the form of the Christian organization are invalid, although they show the spiritual endowments which those prominent in the community could possess. A comparison of the two passages, 1Co_12. and Romans 12:3-8, is interesting on other grounds. St. Paul in the Corinthian Epistle is dealing with a definite series of difficulties arising from the special endowments and irregularities of that church. He treats the whole subject very fully, and, as was necessary, condemns definite disorders. In the Roman Epistle he is evidently writing with the former Epistle in his mind: he uses the same simile: he concludes equally with a list of forms of χαρίσματα — shorter, indeed, but representative; but there is no sign of that directness which would arise from dealing with special circumstances. The letter is written with the experience of Corinth fresh in the writer’ s mind, but without any immediate purpose. He is laying down directions based on his experience; but instead of a number of different details, he sums up all that he has to say in one general moral principle: Prudence and self-restraint in proportion to the gift of faith. Just as the doctrinal portions of the Epistle are written with the memory of past controversies still fresh, discussing and laying down in a broad spirit positions which had been gained in the course of those controversies, so we shall find that in the practical portion St. Paul is laying down broad and statesmanlike positions which are the result of past experience and deal with circumstances which may arise in any community. MAXIMS TO GUIDE THE LIFE 12:9-21. The general principles of your life should be a love which is perfectly sincere, depth of moral feeling, consideration for others, zeal, fervour, devoutness, hopefulness, fortitude under persecutions, prayerfulness, eagerness to help your fellow-Christians by sharing what you possess with them and by the ready exercise of hospitality. Bless, do not curse, your persecutors. Sympathize with others. Be united in feeling, not ambitious but modest in your aims. Be not self-opinionated or revengeful. Do nothing to offend the world. Leave vengeance to God. Good for evil is the best requital. 9. ἡἀγάπη , cf. 13:8. The Apostle comes back from directions which only apply to individuals to the general direction to Christian Charity, which will solve all previous difficulties. διδάσκωνγὰρπῶςἂντὰεἰρημένακατορθωθείη , ἐπήγαγετὴνμητέραπάντωντούτων , λέγωδὴτὴνεἰςἀλλήλουςἀγάπην . The sequence of ideas is exactly similar to that in 1 Corinthians 12:13, and obviously suggested by it. In the section that follows (9-21), ἀγάπη is the ruling thought, but the Apostle does not allow himself to be confined and pours forth directions as to the moral and spiritual life which crowd into his mind. ἀνυπόκριτος . Wisd. 5:18; 18:16; 2 Corinthians 6:6 ; 1 Timothy 1:5 and 2 Timothy 1:5 ; James 3:17 ; 1 Peter 1:22 . It is significant that the word is not used in profane writers except once in the adverbial form, and that by Marcus Aurelius (8:5). ἀποστυγοῦντες : sc. ἔστε as ἔστω above, and cf. 1 Peter 2:18; 1 Peter 3:1. An alternative construction is to suppose an anacoluthon, as if ἀγαπᾶτεἀνυποκρίτως had been read above; cf. 2 Corinthians 1:7. The word expresses a strong feeling of horror; the ἀπο - by farther emphasizing the idea of separation gives an intensive force, which is heightened by contrast with κολλώμενοι . τὸπονηρὸν … τῷἀγαθῷ . The characteristic of true genuine love is to attach oneself to the good in a man, while detesting the evil in him. There cannot be love for what is evil, but whoever has love in him can see the good that there is in all. 10. τῇφιλαδελφίᾳ , ‘ love of the brethren’ ; as contrasted with ἀγάπη , which is universal, φιλαδελφία represents affection for the brethren; that is, for all members of the Christian community, cf. 2 Peter 1:7. Euthym.-Zig. ἀδελφοίἐστεκατὰτὴναὐτὴνδιὰτοῦβαπτίσματοςἀναγέννησινκαὶδιὰτοῦτοἀνάγκηνἔχετεφιλαδελφίας . φιλόστοργοι : the proper term for strong family affection. Euthym.-Zig. τουτέστιθερμῶςκαὶδιαπύρωςφιλοῦντες . ἐπίτασιςγὰρφιλίαςἡστοργή , καὶτῆςστοργῆςπάντωςαὔξησιςἡφιλοστοργία . τῇτιμῇκ .τ .λ .: cf. Philippians 2:3 ‘ in lowliness of mind each accounting other better than himself.’ The condition and the result of true affection are that no one seeks his own honour or position, and every one is willing to give honour to others. The word προηγούμενοι is somewhat difficult; naturally it would mean ‘ going before,’ ‘ preceding,’ and so it has been translated, (1) ‘ in matters of honour preventing one another,’ being the first to show honour: so Vulg. invicem praevenientes; or (2) ‘ leading the way in honourable actions’ : ‘ Love makes a man lead others by the example of showing respect to worth or saintliness,’ Liddon; or (3) ‘ surpassing one another’ : ‘ There is nothing which makes friends so much, as the earnest endeavour to overcome one’ s neighbour in honouring him,’ Chrys. But all these translations are somewhat forced, and are difficult, because προηγεῖσθαι in this sense never takes the accusative. It is, in fact, as admissible to give the word a meaning which it has not elsewhere, as a construction which is unparalleled. A comparison therefore of 1 Thessalonians 5:13; Philippians 2:3 suggests that St. Paul is using the word in the quite possible, although otherwise unknown, sense of ἡγούμενοιὑπερέχοντας . So apparently (=) ‘ in honour preferring one another,’ and Vaughan. 11. τῇσπουδῇμὴὀκνηροί , ‘ in zeal not flagging’ ; the words being used in a spiritual sense, as is shown by the following clauses. Zeal in all our Christian duties will be the natural result of our Christian love, and will in time foster it. On ὀκνηρός cf. Matthew 25:26: it is a word common in the LXX of Proverbs (6:6, &c.). τῷπνεύματιζέοντες : cf. Acts 18:25, ‘ fervent in spirit’ ; that is the human spirit instinct with and inspired by the Divine Spirit. The spiritual life is the source of the Christian’ s love: ‘ And all things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou art made to glow from both sides,’ Chrys. τῷΚυρίῳδουλεύοντες . The source of Christian zeal is spiritual life, the regulating principle our service to Christ. It is not necessary to find any very subtle connexion of thought between these clauses, they came forth eagerly and irregularly from St. Paul’ s mind. Κυρίῳ may have been suggested by πνεύματι , just as below διώκειν in one sense suggests the same word in another sense. There is a very considerable balance of authority in favour of κυρίῳ ( B E L &c., Vulg. Syrr. Boh., Gr. Fathers) as against καιρῷ (D F G, Latin Fathers). Cf. Jer. Ep. 27 ad Marcellam: illi legant spe gaudentes, tempori servientes, nos legamus domino servientes. ad loc. scio autem in nonnullis Latinorum exemplis haberi tempori servientes: quod non mihi videtur convenienter insertum. The corruption may have arisen from κωκρω being confused together, a confusion which would be easier from reminiscences of such expressions as Ephesians 5:16 ἐξαγοραζόμενοιτὸνκαιρόν . 12. τῇἐλπίδιχαίροντες . See above on ver. 8. The Christian hope is the cause of that Christian joy and cheerfulness of disposition which is the grace of Christian love: cf. 1 Corinthians 13:7 ‘ Love … hopeth all things.’ τῇθλίψειὑπομένοντες . Endurance in persecution is naturally connected with the Christian’ s hope: cf. 1 Corinthians 13:7 ‘ Love … endureth all things.’ It is interesting to notice how strongly, even thus early, persecution as a characteristic of the Christian’ s life in the world had impressed itself on St. Paul’ s phraseology: see 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 1 Thessalonians 3:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 1:4, &c.; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35. τῇπροσευχῇπροσκαρτεροῦντες : Acts 1:14; Acts 2:42; Colossians 4:2. Persecution again naturally suggests prayer, for the strength of prayer is specially needed in times of persecution. 13. ταῖςχρείαιςτῶνἁγίωνκοινωνοῦντες . This verse contains two special applications of the principle of love— sharing one’ s goods with fellow-Christians in need, and exercising that hospitality which was part of the bond which knit together the Christian community. With κοινωνεῖν in this sense cf. Philippians 4:15; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Hebrews 13:16. The variation ταῖςμνείαις (D F G, MSS. known to , Vulg. cod. (am), Eus. Hist. Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 1, Hil. ) is interesting. In the translation of Origen we read: Usibus sanctorum communicantes. Memini in latinis exemplaribus magis haberi: memoriis sanctorum communicantes: verum nos nec consuetudinem turbamus, nec veritati praeiudicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat aedificationi. Nam usibus sanctorum honeste et decenter, non quasi stipem indigentibus praebere, sed censum nostrorum cum ipsis quodammodo habere communem, et meminisse sanctorum sive in collectis solemnibus, sive pro eo, ut ex recordatione eorum proficiamus, aptum et conveniens videtur. The variation must have arisen at a time when the ‘ holy’ were no longer the members of the community and fellow-Christians, whose bodily wants required relieving, but the ‘ saints’ of the past, whose lives were commemorated. But this custom arose as early as the middle of the second century: cf. Mart. Polyc. xviii ἔνθαὡςδυνατὸνἡμῖνσυναγομένοιςἐνἀγαλλιάσεικαὶχαρᾷπαρέξειὁΚύριοςἐπιτελεῖντὴντοῦμαρτυρίουαὐτοῦἡμέρανγενέθλιον , εἴςτετὴντῶνπροηθληκότωνμνήμηνκαὶτῶνμελλόντωνἄσκησίντεκαὶἑτοιμασίαν : and the variations may, like other peculiarities of the western text, easily have arisen so soon. We cannot however lay any stress on the passage of Origen, as it is probably due to Rufinus. See Bingham, Ant. xiii. 9. 5. suggest that it was a clerical error arising from the confusion of ΧΡ and ΜΝ in a badly written papyrus MS. φιλοξενίαν . From the very beginning hospitality was recognized as one of the most important of Christian duties (Hebrews 13:2; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; compare also Clem. Rom. § 1 τὸμεγαλοπρεπὲςτῆςφιλοξενίαςὑμῖνἦθος : § 10 of Abraham διὰπίστινκαὶφιλοξενίανἐδόθηαὐτῷυἱὸςἐνγήρᾳ : § 11 διὰφιλοξενίανκαὶεὐσέβειανΔὼτἐσώθη : § 12 διὰπίστινκαὶφιλοξενίανἐσώθηῬαὰβἡπόρνη § 35). On its significance in the early Church see Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 288, 368. The Christians looked upon themselves as a body of men scattered throughout the world, living as aliens amongst strange people, and therefore bound together as the members of a body, as the brethren of one family. The practical realization of this idea would demand that whenever a Christian went from one place to another he should find a home among the Christians in each town he visited. We have a picture of this intercommunion in the letters of Ignatius; we can learn it at an earlier period from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 8:18, 2 Corinthians 8:23, 2 Corinthians 8:24). One necessary part of such intercommunion would be the constant carrying out of the duties of hospitality. It was the unity and strength which this intercourse gave that formed one of the great forces which supported Christianity. 14. εὐλογεῖτετοὺςδιώκοντας . The use of the word διώκειν in one sense seems to have suggested its use in another. The resemblance to Matthew 5:44 is very close: ‘ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’ Emphasis is added by the repetition of the maxim in a negative form. Cf. James 3:9. 15. χαίρεινμετὰχαιρόντωνκ .τ .λ . On the infinitive cf. Winer, § xliii. 5 d, p. 397, E. T. But it seems more forcible and less awkward to take it, as in Philippians 3:16, as the infinitive used for the emphatic imperative than to suppose a change of construction. ‘ But that requires more of a high Christian temper, to rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly: and there is none so hardhearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity: but the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in esteem. And this is why we placed it first. For there is nothing that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with another,’ Chrys. ad loc. Cf. Ecclus. 7:34. 16. τὸαὐτὸ … φρονοῦντες , ‘ being harmonious in your relations towards one another’ : cf. 15:5; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 2:2; Philippians 4:2. The great hindrance to this would be having too high an estimation of oneself: hence the Apostle goes on to condemn such pride. μὴτὰὑψηλὰφρονοῦντες : cf. 11:20; 1 Corinthians 13:5 ‘ Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,’ shows how St. Paul is still carrying out the leading idea of the passage. τοῖςταπεινοῖς : prob. neuter; ‘ allow yourself to be carried along with, give yourself over to, humble tasks:’ ‘ consentinge to meke thingis,’ The verb συναπάγειν means in the active ‘ to lead along with one,’ hence in the passive, ‘ to be carried away with,’ as by a flood which sweeps everything along with it (Lightfoot on Galatians 2:13; cf. 2 Peter 3:17), and hence ‘ to give oneself up to.’ The neuter seems best to suit the contrast with τὰὑψηλά and the meaning of the verb; but elsewhere in the N. T. ταπεινός is always masculine, and so many take it here: ‘ make yourselves equall to them of the lower sorte,’ ‘ Consentinge to the humble,’ Rhen. So Chrys.: ‘ That is, bring thyself down to their humble condition, ride or walk with them; do not be humbled in mind only, but help them also, and stretch forth thy hand to them.’ μὴγίνεσθεφρόνιμοιπαρ ʼ ἑαυτοῖς : taken apparently from Proverbs 3:7 μὴἴσθιφρόνιμοςπαρὰσεαυτῷ . Cf. Origen non potest veram sapientiam Dei scire, qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit. 17. μηδενὶκακὸνἀντὶκακοῦἀποδιδόντες . Another result of the principle of love. Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9; 1 Corinthians 13:5, 1 Corinthians 13:6 ‘ Love … taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness but rejoiceth with the truth.’ προνοούμενοικαλὰἐνώπιονπάντωνἀνθρώπων : cf. Proverbs 3:4, 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 8:21. ‘ As nothing causes offence so much as offending men’ s prejudices, see that your conduct will commend itself as honourable to men.’ Euthym.-Zig. οὐπρὸςἐπίδειξινἀλλὰπρὸςδιδασκαλίαν , καὶὥστεμηδενὶδοῦναιπρόφασινσκανδάλου . This seems better than to lay all the emphasis on the πάντων , as some would do. 18. εἰδυνατόν , ‘ if it be possible, live peaceably with all men, at any rate as far as concerns your part .’ Over what others will do you can have no control, and if they break the peace it is not your fault. ‘ Love seeketh not its own’ (1 Corinthians 13:5). 19. ἀγαπητοί . Added because of the difficulty of the precept not to avenge oneself. δότετόποντῇὀργῇ , ‘ give room or place to the wrath of God.’ Let God’ s wrath punish. Euthym.-Zig. ἀλλὰπαραχωρεῖτετῆςἐκδικήσεωςτῇὀργῇτοῦΘεοῦ , τῇκρίσειτοῦΚυρίου . The meaning of δότετόπον is shown by Ephesians 4:27 μηδὲδίδοτετόποντῷδιαβόλῳ , do not give scope or place to the devil; ἡὀργή means the wrath of God: cf. Romans 5:9. That this is the right interpretation of the word is shown by the quotation which follows. But other interpretations have been often held: δότετόπον is translated by some, ‘ allow space, interpose delay,’ i.e. check and restrain your wrath; by others, ‘ yield to the anger of your opponent’ : neither of these interpretations suits the context or the Greek. γέγραπταιγάρ . The quotation which follows comes from Deuteronomy 32:35, and resembles the Hebrew ‘ Vengeance is mine and recompense,’ rather than the LXX ἐνἡμέρᾳἐκδικήσεωςἀνταποδώσω : and the Targum of Onkelos more than either. The words are quoted in the same form in Hebrews 10:30. 20. ἀλλὰἘὰνπεινᾷὁἐχθρόςσουκ .τ .λ . Taken from the LXX; cf. Proverbs 25:21, Proverbs 25:22, agreeing exactly with the text of B, but varying somewhat from that of A א . The term ἄνθρακεςπυρός clearly means ‘ terrible pangs or pains,’ cf. Psalms 139:11 (140:11).(LXX); 4 (5) Ezra 16:54 Non dicat peccator se non peccasse, quoniam carbones ignis comburet super caput eius qui dicit: Non peccavi coram domino et gloria ipsius. But with what purpose are we to ‘ heap coals of fire on his head’ ? Is it (1) that we may be consoled for our kind act by knowing that he will be punished for his misdeeds? This is impossible, for it attributes a malicious motive, which is quite inconsistent with the context both here and in the O. T. In the latter the passage proceeds, ‘ And the Lord shall reward thee,’ implying that the deed is a good one; here we are immediately told that we are not to be ‘ overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,’ which clearly implies that we are to do what is for our enemies’ benefit. (2) Coals of fire must, therefore, mean, as most commentators since Augustine have said, ‘ the burning pangs of shame,’ which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and which may produce remorse and penitence and contrition. Potest enim fieri ut animus ferus ac barbarus inimici, si sentiat beneficium nostrum, si humanitatem, si affectum, si pietatem videat, compunctionem cordis capiat, commissi poenitudinem gerat, et ex hoc ignis in eo quidem succendatur, qui eum pro commissi conscientia torqueat et adurat: et isti erunt carbones ignis, qui super caput eius ex nostro misericordiae et pietatis opere congregantur, Origen. 21. μὴνικῶὑπὸτοῦκακοῦκ .τ .λ ., ‘ do not allow yourself to be overcome by the evil done to you and be led on to revenge and injury, but conquer your enemies’ evil spirit by your own good disposition.’ A remark which applies to the passage just concluded and shows St. Paul’ s object, but is also of more general application. Tertullian. Josephus. Cod. Vaticanus Cod. Claromontanus Cod. Sangermanensis Cod. Augiensis Cod. Boernerianus Cod. Angelicus Syriac. Bohairic. Sahidic. Vulgate. Chrysostom. Latin. Eusebius. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Meyer. Godet. Vaughan. Gifford. Euthymius Zigabenus. Revised Version. Authorized Version. Cod. Sinaiticus Cod. Alexandrinus Cod. Porphyrianus Latin Version of Origen Theodore of Mopsuessia. Ambrosiaster. Augustine. Westcott and Hort. Wiclif. Tyndale. Coverdale. Geneva. ON TO RULERS 13:1-7. The civil power has Divine sanction. Its functions are to promote well-being, to punish not the good but the wicked. Hence it must be obeyed. Obedience to it is a Christian duty and deprives it of all its terrors. So too you pay tribute because the machinery of government is God’ s ordinance. In this as in all things give to all their due. 13. The Apostle now passes from the duties of the individual Christian towards mankind in general to his duties in one definite sphere, namely towards the civil rulers. While we adhere to what has been said about the absence of a clearly-defined system or purpose in these chapters, we may notice that one main thread of thought which runs through them is the promotion of peace in all the relations of life. The idea of the civil power may have been suggested by ver. 19 of the preceding chapter, as being one of the ministers of the Divine wrath and retribution (ver. 4): at any rate the juxtaposition of the two passages would serve to remind St. Paul’ s readers that the condemnation of individual vengeance and retaliation does not apply to the action of the state in enforcing law; for the state is God’ s minister, and it is the just wrath of God which is acting through it. We have evidence of the use of vv. 8-10 by Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc. v. 14) Merito itaque totam creatoris disciplinam principali praecepto eius conclusit, Diliges proximum tanquam te. Hoc legis supplementum si ex ipsa lege est, quis sit deus legis iam ignoro. On the rest of the chapter we have no information. 1. πᾶσαψυχή : cf. 2:9. The Hebraism suggests prominently the idea of individuality. These rules apply to all however privileged, and the question is treated from the point of view of individual duty. ἐξουσίαις : abstract for concrete, ‘ those in authority’ cf. Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1. ὑπερεχούσαις ‘ who are in an eminent position,’ defining more precisely the idea of ἐξουσίαις : cf. 1 Peter 2:13; Wisdom 6:5. ὑποτασσέσθω . Notice the repetition of words of similar sound, ὑποτασσέσθω … τεταγμέναι … ἀντιτασσόμενος … διαταγῇ and cf. 12:3. οὐγὰρἔστινἐξουσίακ .τ .λ . The Apostle gives the reason for this obedience, stating it first generally and positively, then negatively and distributively. No human authority can exist except as the gift of God and springing from Him, and therefore all constituted powers are ordained by Him. The maxim is common in all Hebrew literature, but is almost always introduced to show how the Divine power is greater than that of all earthly sovereigns, or to declare the obligation of rulers as responsible for all they do to One above them. Wisdom 6:1, 3 ἀκούσατεοὖν , βασιλεῖς , καὶσύνετε , μάθετεδικασταὶπεράτωνγῆς … ὅτιἐδόθηπαρὰτοῦΚυρίουἡκράτησιςὑμῖνκαὶἡδυναστείαπαρὰὑψίστου : Enoch xlvi. 5 ‘ And he will put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because they do not extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them’ : Jos. Bell. Jud. II. viii. 7 τὸπιστὸνπαρέξεινπᾶσι , μάλισταδὲτοῖςκρατοῦσιν · οὐγὰρδίχαΘεοῦπεριγίνεσθαίτινιτὸἄρχειν . St. Paul adopts the maxim for a purpose similar to that in which it is used in the last instance, that it is the duty of subjects to obey their rulers, because they are appointed and ordained by God. The preponderance of authority (א A B L P and many later MSS., Bas. Chrys.) is decisive for εἰμὴὑπὸΘεοῦ . The Western reading ἀπὸΘεοῦ was a correction for the less usual expression (D E F G and many later MSS., Orig. Jo.-Damasc.). The reading of the end of the verse should be αἱδὲοὖσαιὑπὸΘεοῦτεταγμέναιεἰσίν א A B D F G. 2. ὥστεὁἀντιτασσόμενοςκ .τ .λ . The logical result of this theory as to the origin of human power is that resistance to it is resistance to the ordering of God; and hence those who resist will receive κρῖμα — a judgement or condemnation which is human, for it comes through human instruments, but Divine as having its origin and source in God. There is no reference here to eternal punishment. 3. οἱγὰρἄρχοντες . The plural shows that the Apostle is speaking quite generally. He is arguing out the duty of obeying rulers on general principles, deduced from the fact that ‘ the state’ exists for a beneficent end; he is not arguing from the special condition or circumstances of any one state. The social organism, as a modern writer might say, is a power on the side of good. τῷἀγαθῷἔργῳ : cf. 2:7 τοῖςμὲνκαθ ʼ ὑπομονὴνἔργουἀγαθοῦ . In both passages ἔργον is used collectively; there it means the sum of a man’ s actions, here the collective work of the state. For the subject cf. 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2: we are to pray ‘ for kings and all in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.’ The singular τῷἀγαθῷἔργῳἀλλὰτῷκακῷ is read by א A B D F G P, Boh. Vulg. (boni operis sed mali), Clem.-Alex. Iren.-lat. Tert. Orig.-lat. Jo.- Damasc. Later MSS. with EL, Syrr. Arm., Chrys. Thdrt. read τῶνἀγαθῶνἔργων … κακῶν . Hort suggests an emendation of Patrick Young, τῷἀγαθοεργῷ , which has some support apparently from the Aeth. ei qui facit bonum: but the antithesis with κακῷ makes this correction improbable. θέλειςδὲ … ἐξουσίαν ; The construction is more pointed if these words are made a question. As the state exists for a good end, if you lead a peaceable life you will have nothing to fear from the civil power. 4. Θεοῦγὰρδιάκονόςἐστι . Fem. to agree with ἐξουσία , which throughout is almost personified. σοι , ‘ for thee,’ ethical, for thy advantage. εἰςτὸἀγαθόν , ‘ for the good,’ to promote good, existing for a good end. τὴνμάχαιραν . The sword is the symbol of the executive and criminal jurisdiction of a magistrate, and is therefore used of the power of punishing inherent in the government. So Ulpian, Digest, i. 18. 6. § 8; Tac. Hist. iii. 68; Dio Cassius, xlii. 27. ἔκδικοςεἰςὀργήν , ‘ inflicting punishment or vengeance so as to exhibit wrath,’ namely the Divine wrath as administered by the ruler who is God’ s agent (cf. ver. 2 and 12:19). The repetition of the phrase Θεοῦδιάκονος with both sides of the sentence emphasizes the double purpose of the state. It exists positively for the well-being of the community, negatively to check evil by the infliction of punishment, and both these functions are derived from God. 5. διό : rulers, because as God’ s ministers they have a Divine order and purpose, are to be obeyed, not only because they have power over men, but also because it is right, διὰτὴνσυνείδησιν (cf. 2:15, 9:1). 6. διὰτοῦτογὰρκαί , sc. διὰτὴνσυνείδησιν : ‘ and it is for this reason also.’ St. Paul is appealing to a principle which his readers will recognize. It is apparently an admitted rule of the Christian communities that taxes are to be paid, and he points out that the principle is thus recognized of the moral duty of obeying rulers. That he could thus appeal to a recognized practice seems to imply that the words of our Lord (Luke 20:20-25) had moulded the habits of the early Church, and this suggestion is corroborated by ver. 7 (see the longer note below). λειτουργοί , ‘ God’ s ministers.’ Although the word is used in a purely secular sense of a servant, whether of an individual or of a community (1 Kings 10:5; Ecclus. 10:2), yet the very definite meaning which λειτουργὸςΘεοῦ had acquired (Ecclus 7:30; Hebrews 8:2; see especially the note on Romans 15:16) adds emphasis to St. Paul’ s expression. προσκαρτεροῦντες must apparently be taken absolutely (as in Xen. Hell. VII. v. 14), ‘ persevering faithfully in their office,’ and εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτο gives the purpose of the office, the same as that ascribed above to the state. These words cannot be taken immediately with προσκαρτεροῦντες , for that verb, as in 12:13, seems always to govern the dative. 7. St. Paul concludes this subject and leads on to the next by a general maxim which covers all the different points touched upon: ‘ Pay each one his due.’ τῷτὸνφόρον , sc. ἀπαιτοῦντι . φόρος is the tribute paid by a subject nation (Luke 20:22; Luk_1 Macc. 10:33), while τέλος represents the customs and dues which would in any case be paid for the support of the civil government (Matthew 17:25; Mat_1 Macc. 10:31). φόβος is the respectful awe which is felt for one who has power in his hands; τιμήν honour and reverence paid to a ruler: cf. 1 Peter 2:17 τὸνΘεὸνφοβεῖσθε · τὸνβασιλέατιμᾶτε . A strange interpretation of this verse may be seen in the Gnostic book entitled ΠίστιςΣοφία , p. 294, ed. Schwartze. The Church and the Civil Power The motive which impelled St. Paul to write this section of the Epistle has (like so many other questions) been discussed at great length with the object of throwing light on the composition of the Roman Church. If the opinion which has been propounded already in reference to these chapters be correct, it will be obvious that here as elsewhere St. Paul is writing, primarily at any rate, with a view to the state of the Church as a whole, not to the particular circumstances of the Roman community: it being recognized at the same time that questions which agitated the whole Christian world would be likely to be reflected in what was already an important centre of Christianity. Whether this opinion be correct or not must depend partly, of course, on our estimate of the Epistle as a whole; but if it be assumed to be so, the character of this passage will amply support it. There is a complete absence of any reference to particular circumstances: the language is throughout general: there is a studied avoidance of any special terms; direct commands such as might arise from particular circumstances are not given: but general principles applicable to any period or place are laid down. As elsewhere in this Epistle, St. Paul, influenced by his past experiences, or by the questions which were being agitated around him, or by the fear of difficulties which he foresaw as likely to arise, lays down broad general principles, applying to the affairs of life the spirit of Christianity as he has elucidated it. But what were the questions that were in the air when he wrote? There can be no doubt that primarily they would be those current in the Jewish nation concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes and otherwise recognizing the authority of a foreign ruler. When our Lord was asked, ‘ Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or no?’ (Matthew 22:18 f.; Luke 20:22 f.), a burning question was at once raised. Starting from the express command ‘ thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother’ (Deuteronomy 17:15), and from the idea of a Divine theocracy, a large section of the Jews had refused to recognize or pay taxes to the Roman government. Judas the Gaulonite, who said that ‘ the census was nothing else but downright slavery’ (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 1), or Theudas (ibid. XX. v. 1), or Eleazar, who is represented as saying that ‘ we have long since made up our minds not to serve the Romans or any other man, but God alone’ (Bell. Jud. VII. viii. 6), may all serve as instances of a tendency which was very wide spread. Nor was this spirit confined to the Jews of Palestine; elsewhere, both in Rome and in Alexandria, riots had occurred. Nor again was it unlikely that Christianity would be affected by it. A good deal of the phraseology of the early Christians was derived from the Messianic prophecies of the O. T., and these were always liable to be taken in that purely material sense which our Lord had condemned. The fact that St. Luke records the question of the disciples, ‘ Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6) seems to imply that such ideas were current, and the incident at Thessalonica, where St. Paul himself, because he preached the ‘ kingdom,’ was accused of preaching ‘ another king, one Jesus,’ shows how liable even he was to misinterpretation. These instances are quite sufficient to explain how the question was a real one when St. Paul wrote, and why it had occupied his thoughts. It is not necessary to refer it either to Ebionite dualistic views (so Baur), which would involve an anachronism, or to exaggerated Gentile ideas of Christian liberty; we have no record that these were ever perverted in this direction. Two considerations may have specially influenced St. Paul to discuss the subject in his Epistle to the Romans. The first was the known fact of the turbulence of the Roman Jews; a fact which would be brought before him by his intercourse with Priscilla and Aquila. This may illustrate just the degree of local reference in the Epistle to the Romans. We have emphasized more than once the fact that we cannot argue anything from such passages as this as to the state of the Roman community; but St. Paul would not write in the air, and the knowledge of the character of the Jewish population in Rome gained from political refugees would be just sufficient to suggest this topic. A second cause which would lead him to introduce it would be the fascination which he felt for the power and position of Rome, a fascination which has been already illustrated (Introduction, § 1). It must be remembered that when this Epistle was written the Roman Empire had never appeared in the character of a persecutor. Persecution had up to this time always come from the Jews or from popular riots. To St. Paul the magistrates who represented the Roman power had always been associated with order and restraint. The persecution of Stephen had probably taken place in the absence of the Roman governor: it was at the hands of the Jewish king Herod that James the brother of John had perished: at Paphos, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, at Ephesus, St. Paul had found the Roman officials a restraining power and all his experience would support the statements that he makes: ‘ The rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil:’ ‘ He is a minister of God to thee for good:’ ‘ He is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.’ Nor can any rhetorical point be made as has been attempted from the fact that Nero was at this time the ruler of the Empire. It may be doubted how far the vices of a ruler like Nero seriously affected the well-being of the provincials, but at any rate when these words were written the world was enjoying the good government and bright hopes of Nero’ s Quinquennium. The true relations of Christianity to the civil power had been laid down by our Lord when He had said: ‘ My kingdom is not of this world,’ and again: ‘ Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’ s and to God the things that be God’ s.’ It is difficult to believe that St. Paul had not these words in his mind when he wrote ver. 7, especially as the coincidences with the moral teaching of our Lord are numerous in these chapters. At any rate, starting from this idea he works out the principles which must lie at the basis of Christian politics, that the State is divinely appointed, or permitted by God; that its end is beneficent; and that the spheres of Church and State are not identical. It has been remarked that, when St. Paul wrote, his experience might have induced him to estimate too highly the merits of the Roman government. But although later the relation of the Church to the State changed, the principles of the Church did not. In 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2 the Apostle gives a very clear command to pray for those in authority: ‘ I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity’ ; so also in Titus 3:1 ‘ Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities.’ When these words were written, the writer had to some extent at any rate experienced the Roman power in a very different aspect. Still more important is the evidence of 1 Peter. It was certainly written at a time when persecution, and that of an official character, had begun, yet the commands of St. Paul are repeated and with even greater emphasis (1 Peter 2:13-17). The sub-Apostolic literature will illustrate this. Clement is writing to the Corinthians just after successive periods of persecution, yet he includes a prayer of the character which he would himself deliver, in the as yet unsystematized services of the day, on behalf of secular rulers. ‘ Give concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth … while we render obedience to Thine Almighty and most excellent Name, and to our rulers and governors upon the earth. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given them the power of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, that we, knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast given them, may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing resisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, health, peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the government which Thou hast given them without failure. For Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the sons of men glory and honour and power over all things that are upon the earth. Do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well-pleasing in Thy sight.’ Still more significant is the letter of Polycarp, which was written very shortly after he had met Ignatius on his road to martyrdom; in it he emphasizes the Christian custom by combining the command to pray for rulers with that to love our enemies. ‘ Pray also for kings and powers and princes and for them that persecute and hate you and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest among all men that ye may be perfect in Him.’ (Clem. Rom. 60, 61; Polyc. ad Phil. xii.) It is not necessary to give further instances of a custom which prevailed extensively or universally in the early Church. It became a commonplace of apologists (Just. Mart. Apol. i. 17; Athenagoras, Leg. xxxvii; Theophilus, i. 11; Tertullian, Apol. 30, 39, ad Scap. 2; Dion. Alex. ap Eus. H. E. VII. xi; Arnob. iv. 36) and is found in all liturgies (cf. Const. Ap. viii. 12). One particular phase in the interpretation of this chapter demands a passing notice. In the hands of the Jacobean and Caroline divines it was held to support the doctrine of Passive Obedience. This doctrine has taken a variety of forms. Some held that a Monarchy as opposed to a Republic is the only scriptural form of government, others that a legitimate line alone has this divine right. A more modified type of this teaching may be represented by a sermon of Bishop Berkeley (Passive Obedience or the Christian Doctrine of not resisting the supreme power, proved and vindicated upon the principles of the law of nature in a discourse delivered at the College Chapel, 1712. Works, iii. p. 101). He takes as his text Romans 13:2 ‘ Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God.’ He begins ‘ It is not my design to inquire into the particular nature of the government and constitution of these kingdoms.’ He then proceeds by assuming that ‘ there is in every civil community, somewhere or other, placed a supreme power of making laws, and enforcing the observation of them.’ His main purpose is to prove that ‘ Loyalty is a moral virtue, and thou shalt not resist the supreme power, a rule or law of nature, the least breach whereof hath the inherent stain of moral turpitude.’ And he places it on the same level as the commandments which St. Paul quotes in this same chapter. Bishop Berkeley represents the doctrine of Passive Obedience as expounded in its most philosophical form. But he does not notice the main difficultySt. Paul gives no directions as to what ought to be done when there is a conflict of authority. In his day there could be no doubt that the rule of Caesar was supreme and had become legitimate: all that he had to condemn was an incorrect view of the ‘ kingdom of heaven’ as a theocracy established on earth, whether it were held by Jewish zealots or by Christians. He does not discuss the question, ‘ if there were two claimants for the Empire which should be supported?’ for it was not a practical difficulty when he wrote. So Bishop Berkeley, by his use of the expression ‘ somewhere or other,’ equally evades the difficulty. Almost always when there is a rebellion or a civil war the question at issue is, Who is the rightful governor? which is the power ordained by God? But there is a side of the doctrine of Passive Obedience which requires emphasis, and which was illustrated by the Christianity of the first three centuries. The early Christians were subject to a power which required them to do that which was forbidden by their religion. To that extent and within those limits they could not and did not obey it; but they never encouraged in any way resistance or rebellion. In all things indifferent the Christian conformed to existing law; he obeyed the law ‘ not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ He only disobeyed when it was necessary to do so for conscience sake. The point of importance is the detachment of the two spheres of activity. The Church and the State are looked upon as different bodies, each with a different work to perform. To designate this or that form of government as ‘ Christian,’ and support it on these grounds, would have been quite alien to the whole spirit of those days. The Church must influence the world by its hold on the hearts and consciences of individuals, and in that way, and not by political power, will the Kingdom of God come. LOVE THE OF ALL LAW 13:8-10. There is one debt which the Christian must always be paying but never can discharge, that of love. All particular precepts are summed up in that of love, which makes injury to any man impossible. 8. St. Paul passes from our duties towards superiors to that one principle which must control our relations towards all men, love. In 12:9 the principle of love is introduced as the true solution of all difficulties which may arise from rivalry in the community; here it is represented as at the root of all regulations as to our relations to others in any of the affairs of life. μηδενὶμηδὲνὀφείλετε must be imperative as the negatives show. It sums up negatively the results of the previous verse and suggests the transition, ‘ Pay every one their due and owe no man anything.’ εἰμὴτὸἀγαπᾷἀλλήλους : ‘ Let your only debt that is unpaid be that of love— a debt which you should always be attempting to discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging.’ Permanere tamen et nunquam cessare a nobis debitum caritatis: hoc enim et quotidie solvere et semper debere expedit nobis. Orig. By this pregnant expression St. Paul suggests both the obligation of love and the impossibility of fulfilling it. This is more forcible than to suppose a change in the meaning of ὀφείλετε : ‘ Owe no man anything, only ye ought to love one another.’ ὁγὰρἀγαπῶνκ .τ .λ . gives the reason why ‘ love’ is so important: if a man truly loves another he has fulfilled towards him the whole law. νόμον is not merely the Jewish law, although it is from it that the illustrations that follow are taken, but law as a principle. Just as in the relations of man and God πίστις has been substituted for νόμος , so between man and man ἀγάπη takes the place of definite legal relations. The perfect πεπλήρωκεν implies that the fulfilment is already accomplished simply in the act of love. 9. St. Paul gives instances of the manner in which ‘ love’ fulfils law. No man who loves another will injure him by adultery, by murder, by theft, &c. They are all therefore summed up in the one maxim ‘ thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ as indeed they were also in the Old Covenant. The AV. adds after οὐκλέψεις in this verse οὐψενδομαρτυρήσεις from the O. T. with א P &c., Boh. &c., as against A B D E F G L &c., Vulg. codd. and most Fathers. ἐντῷ before ἀγαπήσεις is omitted by B F G. For σεαυτόν of the older MSS. (א A B D E), later MSS. read ἑαυτόν , both here and elsewhere. In late Greek ἑαυτόν became habitually used for all persons in the reflexive, and scribes substituted the form most usual to them. The order of the commandments is different from that in the Hebrew text, both in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17, namely, (6) Thou shalt do no murder, (7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (8) Thou shalt not steal. The MSS. of the LXX vary; in Exodus B reads 7, 8, 6, A F 6, 7, 8; in Deut. B reads 7, 6, 8 (the order here), A F 6, 7, 8. The order of Romans is that also of Luk 18:20; James 2:11; Philo De Decalogo; Clem.-Alex. Strom. vi. 16. καὶεἴτιςἑτέρα shows that St. Paul in this selection has only taken instances and that he does not mean merely to give a summing up of the Jewish law. ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται : a rhetorical term used of the summing up of a speech or argument, and hence of including a large number of separate details under one head. As used in Ephesians 1:10 of God summing up all things in Christ it became a definite theological term, represented in Latin by recapitulatio (Iren. III. xxii. 2). Ἀγαπήσειςτὸνπλησίονσουὡςἑαυτόν . Taken from Leviticus 19:18 where it sums up a far longer list of commandments. It is quoted Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8 where it is called βασιλικὸςνόμος . 10. ἡἀγάπη … οὐκἐργάζεται . Love fulfils all law, because no one who loves another will do him any ill by word or deed. These words sum up what has been said at greater length in 1 Corinthians 13:4-6. πλήρωμα , ‘ complete fulfilment.’ The meaning of πλ . here is given by ver. 9 ‘ He that loveth his neighbour has fulfilled law, therefore love is the fulfilment of law. The History of the word ἀγάπη . There are three words in Greek all of which may be translated by the English ‘ love,’ ἐράω , φιλέω , ἀγαπάω . Of these ἐράω with its cognate form ἔραμαι was originally associated with the sexual passion and was thence transferred to any strong passionate affection; φιλέω was used rather of warm domestic affection, and so of the love of master and servant, of parents and children, of husband and wife; in Homer, of the love of the gods for men. ἐρᾶν is combined with ἐπιθυμεῖν and contrasted with φιλεῖν as in Xen. Hier. xi. 11 ὤστεοὐμόνονφιλοῖοἂνἀλλὰκαὶἐρῷο . One special use of ἔρως and ἐράω must be referred to, namely, the Platonic. The intensity and strength of human passion seemed to Plato to represent most adequately the love of the soul for higher things, and so the philosophic ἔρως was used for the highest human desire, that for true knowledge, true virtue, true immortality. The distinction of φιλέω and ἀγαπάω much resembled that between ame and diligo. The one expressed greater affection, the other greater esteem. So Dio Cassius xliv. 48 ἐφιλήσατεαὐτὸνὡςπατέρακαὶἠγαπήσατεὡςεὐεργέτην ; and John 21:15-17 λέγειαὐτῷπάλινδεύτερον , ΣίμωνἸωάνου , ἀγαπᾷςμε ; λέγειαὐτῷ , Ναί , Κύριε · σὺοἵδαςὅτιφιλῶσεκ .τ .λ . (see Trench, Syn. § xii). It is significant that no distinction is absolute; but φιλέω occasionally, still more rarely ἀγαπάω , are both used incorrectly of the sexual passion. There is too close a connexion between the different forms of human affection to allow any rigid distinction to be made in the use of words. When these words were adopted into Hellenistic Greek, a gradual change was made in their use. ἐράω and its cognates are very rarely used, and almost invariably in a bad sense. In the N. T. they do not occur at all, the word ἐπιθυμέω being employed instead. Yet occasionally, even in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek, the higher sense of the Platonic ἔρως finds a place (Proverbs 4:6; Wisdom 8:2; Justin, Dial. 8, p. 225 B; Clem.-Alex. Coh. ii, p. 90; see Lightfoot, Ignatius ad Rom. vii. 2). Between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω a decided preference was shown for the former. It occurs about 268 times (Hatch and Redpath) in a very large proportion of cases as a translation of the Hebrew א ָ ה ֵ ב ; φιλέω about twelve times (Trommius), excluding its use as equivalent to osculor. This choice was largely due to the use of the Hebrew word to express the love of God to man, and of man to God (Deuteronomy 23:5; Deuteronomy 30:6; Hosea 3:1); it was felt that the greater amount of intellectual desire and the greater severity implied in ἀγαπάω fitted it better than φιλέω for this purpose. But while it was elevated in meaning it was also broadened; it is used not only of the love of father and son, of husband and wife, but also of the love of Samson for Delilah (Jude 1:16:4) and of Hosea’ s love for his adulterous wife (Hosea 3:1). Nor can there be any doubt that to Hebrew writers there was in a pure love of God or of righteousness something of the intensity which is the highest characteristic of human passion (Isaiah 62:5). ἀγαπάω in the LXX corresponds in all its characteristics to the English ‘ love.’ But not only did the LXX use modify the meaning of ἀγαπάω , it created a new word ἀγάπη . Some method was required of expressing the conception which was gradually growing up. Ἕρως had too sordid associations. Φιλία was tried (Wisdom 7:14; 8:18), but was felt to be inadequate. The language of the Song of Solomon created the demand for ἀγάπη . (2Ki_1 or 2 times; Ecc_2; Canticles 11; Wisdom 2; Ecclus. 1; Jer_1; Ps. Son_1.) The N. T. reproduces the usage of the LXX, but somewhat modified. While ἀγαπάω is used 138 times, φιλέω is used in this sense 22 times (13 in St. John’ s Gospel); generally when special emphasis has to be laid on the relations of father and son. But the most marked change is in the use of ἀγάπη . It is never used in the Classical writers, only occasionally in the LXX; in early Christian writers its use becomes habitual and general. Nothing could show more clearly that a new principle has been created than this creation of a new word. In the Vulgate ἀγάπη is sometimes rendered by dilectio, sometimes by caritas; to this inconsistency are due the variations in the English Authorized Version. The word caritas passed into English in the Middle Ages (for details see Eng. Dict. sub voc.) in the form ‘ charity,’ and was for some time used to correspond to most of the meanings of ἀγάπη ; but as the English Version was inconsistent and no corresponding verb existed the usage did not remain wide. In spite of its retention in 1Co_13. ‘ charity’ became confined in all ordinary phraseology to ‘ benevolence,’ and the Revised Version was compelled to make the usage of the New Testament consistent. Whatever loss there may have been in association and in the rhythm of well-known passages, there is an undoubted gain. The history of the word ἀγαπάω is that of the collection under one head of various conceptions which were at any rate partially separated, and the usage of the N. T. shows that the distinction which has to be made is not between φιλέω , ἀγαπάω and ἐράω , but between ἀγάπη and ἐπιθυμία . The English language makes this distinction between the affection or passion in any form, and a purely animal desire, quite plain; although it may be obliterated at times by a natural euphemism. But setting aside this distinction which must be occasionally present to the mind, but which need not be often spoken of, Christianity does not shrink from declaring that in all forms of human passion and affection which are not purely animal there is present that same love which in its highest and most pure development forms the essence and sum of the Christian religion. This affection, however perverted it may be, Christianity does not condemn, but so far as may be elevates and purifies. The Christian Teaching on Love The somewhat lengthy history just given of the word ἀγάπη is a suitable introduction to the history of an idea which forms a fundamental principle of all Christian thought. The duty of love in some form or other had been a common-place of moral teaching in times long before Christianity and in many different places. Isolated maxims have been collected in its favour from very varied authors, and the highest pagan teaching approaches the highest Christian doctrine. But in all previous philosophy such teaching was partial or isolated, it was never elevated to a great principle. Maxims almost or quite on a level with those of Christianity we find both in the O. T. and in Jewish writers. The command ‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ is of course taken directly from the O. T., and is there used to sum up in one general principle a long series of rules. Sayings of great beauty are quoted from the Jewish fathers. ‘ Hillel said, Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Torah’ (Pirqê Aboth i. 13); or again, ‘ What is hateful to thyself do not to thy fellow; this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary; go study,’ also ascribed to Hillel. It is however true in all cases that these maxims, and all such as these, are only isolated instances, that they do not represent the spirit of earlier institutions, and that they form a very insignificant proportion compared with much of a different character. In Christianity this principle, which had been only partially understood and imperfectly taught, which was known only in isolated examples, yet testified to a universal instinct, was finally put forward as the paramount principle of moral conduct, uniting our moral instincts with our highest religious principles. A new virtue, or rather one hitherto imperfectly understood, had become recognized as the root of all virtues, and a new name was demanded for what was practically a new idea. In the first place, the new Christian doctrine of love is universal. ‘ Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;’ and a very definite reason is given, the universal Fatherhood of God. This universalism which underlies all the teaching of Jesus is put in a definite practical form by St. Paul, ‘ In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female.’ As it is summed up in a well-known work. ‘ The first law, then, of the kingdom of God is that all men, however divided from each other by blood or language, have certain mutual duties arising out of their common relation to God’ (Ecce Homo, chap. 12). But secondly, the Christian doctrine of love was the substitution of a universal principle for law. All moral precepts are summed up in the one command of love. What is my duty towards others? Just that feeling which you have towards the persons to whom you are most attached in the world, just that you must feel for every one. If you have that feeling there will be no need for any further command. Love is a principle and a passion, and as such is the fulfilment of the Law. Christ ‘ declared an ardent, passionate, or devoted state of mind to be the root of virtue’ ; and this purifying passion, capable of existing in all men alike, will be able to redeem our nature and make laws superfluous. And thirdly, how is this new Christian spirit possible? It is possible because it is intimately bound up with that love which is a characteristic of the Godhead. ‘ God is love.’ ‘ A new commandment I give to you, that ye should love one another as I have loved you.’ It is possible also because men have learnt to love mankind in Christ. ‘ Where the precept of love has been given, an image must be set before the eyes of those who are called on to obey it, an ideal or type of man which may be noble and amiable enough to raise the whole race, and make the meanest member of it sacred with reflected glory.’ This is what Christ did for us. These three points will help to elucidate what St. Paul means by ἀγάπη . It is in fact the correlative in the moral world to what faith is in the religious life. Like faith it is universal; like faith it is a principle not a code; like faith it is centred in the Godhead. Hence St. Paul, as St. John (1 John 3:23), sums up Christianity in Faith and Love, which are finally, united in that Love of God, which is the end and root of both. THE DAY IS AT HAND 13:11-14. The night of this corrupt age is flying. The Parousia is nearing. Cast off your evil ways. Gird yourselves with the armour of light. Take Christ into your hearts. Shun sin and self-indulgence. 11. The Apostle adds a motive for the Christian standard of life, the nearness of our final salvation. καὶτοῦτο , ‘ and that too’ : cp. 1 Corinthians 6:6, 1 Corinthians 6:8; Ephesians 2:8, &c.: it resumes the series of exhortations implied in the previous sections; there is no need to supply any special words with it. τὸνκαιρόν : used of a definite, measured, or determined time, and so almost technically of the period before the second coming of Christ: cf. 1 Corinthians 7:29 ὁκαιρὸςσυνεσταλμένοσ ; Mark 1:15; and so ὁκαιρὸςὁἐνεστώς (Hebrews 9:9). ὅτιὥραἤδηκ .τ .λ . ἤδη with ἐγερθῆναι . The time of trial on earth is looked upon as a night of gloom, to be followed by a bright morning. We must arouse ourselves from slumber and prepare ourselves for the light. νῦνγὰρἐγγύτερονκ .τ .λ . ‘ For our completed salvation, no longer that hope of salvation which sustains us here, is appreciably nearer for us than when we first accepted in faith the Messianic message.’ ὅτεἐπιστεύσαμεν refers to the actual moment of the acceptance of Christianity. The language is that befitting those who expect the actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day. In ver. 11 the original ὑμᾶς (א A B C P, Clem.-Alex.) has been corrected for the sake of uniformity into ἡμᾶς (א c D E F G L, &c., Boh. Sah.). In ver. 13 ἐνἔρισικαὶζήλοις is a variant of B, Sah., Clem.-Alex. Amb. In ver. 14, B, and Clem.-Alex. read τὸνΧριστὸνἸησοῦν , which may very likely be the correct reading. 12. προέκοψεν , ‘ has advanced towards dawn.’ Cf. Luke 2:52; Galatians 1:14; Jos. Bell. Jud. IV. 4:6; Just. Dial. p. 277 d. The contrast of ὕπνος , νύξ , and σκότος with ἡμέρα and φῶς finds many illustrations in Christian and in all religious literature. ἀποθώμεθα . The works of darkness, i.e. works such as befit the kingdom of darkness, are represented as being cast off like the uncomely garments of the night, for the bright armour which befits the Christian soldier as a member of the kingdom of light. This metaphor of the Christian armour is a favourite one with St. Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:8; 2 Corinthians 6:7; Romans 6:13; and especially Ephesians 6:13 f.); it may have been originally suggested by the Jewish conception of the last great fight against the armies of Antichrist (Dan_10; Orac. Sib. 3. 663 f.; 4 Ezra 13:33; Enoch xc.16), but in St. Paul the conception has become completely spiritualized. 13. εὐσχημόνωςπεριπατήσωμεν . The metaphor περιπατεῖν of conduct is very common in St. Paul’ s Epistles, where it occurs thirty-three times (never in the Past. Epp.); elsewhere in the N. T. sixteen times. κώμοις , ‘ rioting,’ ‘ revelry’ (Galatians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:3). μέθη the drunkenness which would be the natural result and accompaniment of such revelry. κοίταιςκαὶἀσελγείαις , ‘ unlawful intercourse and wanton acts.’ Οραδὲτὴντάξιν · κωμάζωνμὲνγάρτιςμεθύει , μεθύωνδὲκοιτάζεται , κοιταζόμενοςδὲἀσελγαίνει , τοῦοἴνουτοῦτοντῇπλησμονῇπυρπολοῦντοςκαὶδιερεθίζοντος . Euthym.-Zig. 14. ἐνδύσασθετὸνΚύριονἸησοῦνΧριστόν . Christ is put on first in baptism (6:3; Galatians 3:27), but we must continually renew that life with which we have been clothed (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:12). τῆςσαρκός with πρόνοιαν : the word is thrown forward in order to emphasize the contrast between the old nature, the flesh of sin, and the new, the life in Christ. On this passage most commentators compare St. Aug. Confess. 8:12, 23 Arripui, aperui et legi in silentio capitulum, quo primum coniecti sunt oculi mei: Non in conversationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et aemulatione: sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis providentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis. Nec ultra volui legere, nec opus erat. Statim quippe cum fine huiusce sententiae quasi luce securitatis infusa cordi meo, omnes dubitationis tenebrae diffugerunt. The early Christian belief in the nearness of the παρουσία . There can hardly be any doubt that in the Apostolic age the prevailing belief was that the Second Coming of the Lord was an event to be expected in any case shortly and probably in the life-time of many of those then living; it is also probable that this belief was shared by the Apostles themselves. For example, so strongly did such views prevail among the Thessalonian converts that the death of some members of the community had filled them with perplexity, and even when correcting these opinions St. Paul speaks of ‘ we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of our Lord’ ; and in the second Epistle, although he corrects the erroneous impression which still prevailed that the coming was immediate and shows that other events must precede it, he still contemplates it as at hand. Similar passages may be quoted from all or most of the Epistles, although there are others that suggest that it is by his own death, not by the coming of Christ, that St. Paul expects to attain the full life in Christ to which he looked forward (1 Corinthians 7:29-31; Romans 13:11, Romans 13:12; Philippians 4:5; and on the other side 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 1:23; Philippians 3:11, Philippians 3:20, Philippians 3:21; see Jowett, Thessalonians, &c., i. p. 105, who quotes both classes of passages without distinguishing them). How far was this derived from our Lord’ s own teaching? There is, it is true, very clear teaching on the reality and the suddenness of the coming of Christ, and very definite exhortation to all Christians to live as expecting that coming. This teaching is couched largely in the current language of Apocalyptic literature which was often hardly intended to be taken literally even by Jewish writers; moreover it is certainly mingled with teaching which was intended to refer to what was a real manifestation of the Divine power, and very definitely a ‘ coming of the Lord’ in the O. T. sense of the term, the destruction of Jerusalem. All this language again is reported to us by those who took it in a literal sense. The expressions of our Lord quoted as prophetic of His speedy return are all to a certain extent ambiguous; for example, ‘ This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled,’ or again ‘ There be some of them here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming with power.’ On the other side there is a very distinct tradition preserved in documents of different classes recording that when our Lord was asked definitely on such matters His answers were ambiguous. Acts 1:7 ‘ It is not for you to know times and seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.’ John 21:23 ‘ This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’ Moreover he affirmed that He Himself was ignorant of the date Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36 ‘ But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ In the face of these passages it is reasonable to believe that this ignorance of the Early Church was permitted and that with a purpose. If so, we may be allowed to speculate as to the service it was intended to fulfil. In the first place, this belief in the nearness of the second coming quickened the religious and moral earnestness of the early Christian. Believing as intently as he did ‘ that the fashion of this world passeth away,’ he ‘ set his affection on things above’ ; he lived in the world and yet not of the world. The constant looking forward to the coming of the Lord produced a state of intense spiritual zeal which braced the Church for its earliest and hardest task. And secondly, it has been pointed out very ably how much the elasticity and mobility of Christianity were preserved by the fact that the Apostles never realized that they were building up a Church which was to last through the ages. It became the fashion of a later age to ascribe to the Apostles a series of ordinances and constitutions. Any such theory is quite inconsistent with the real spirit of their time. They never wrote or legislated except so far as existing needs demanded. They founded such institutions as were clearly required by some immediate want, or were part of our Lord’ s teaching. But they never administered or planned with a view to the remote future. Their writings were occasional, suggested by some pressing difficulty; but they thus incidentally laid down great broad principles which became the guiding principles of the Church. The Church therefore is governed by case law, not by code law: by broad principles, not by minute regulations. It may seem a paradox, but yet it is profoundly true, that the Church is adapted to the needs of every age, just because the original preachers of Christianity never attempted to adapt it to the needs of any period but their own. The relation of Chaps. 12-14 to the Gospels There is a very marked resemblance between the moral teaching of St. Paul contained in the concluding section of the Epistle to the Romans, and our Lord’ s own words; a resemblance which, in some cases, extends even to language. Romans 12:14.Matthew 5:44. εὐλογεῖτετοῦςδιώκονταςὑμᾶς · εὐλογεῖτε , καὶμὴκαταρᾶσθε . ἀγαπᾶτετοὺςἐχθροὺςὑμῶν , καὶπροσεύχεσθεὑπὲρτῶνδιωκόντωνὑμᾶς . Romans 13:7. Matthew 22:21. ἀπόδοτεπᾶσιτὰςὀφειλάςκ .τ .λ . ἀπόδοτεοὖντὰΚαίσαροςΚαίσαρι , καὶτὰτοῦΘεοῦτῷΘεῷ . Romans 13:9. Matthew 22:39, Matthew 22:40. καὶεἴτιςἑτέραἐντολή , ἐντούτῳτῷλόγῳἀνακεφαλαιοῦται , ἐντῷἈγαπήσειςτὸνπλησίονσουὡςὲαυτόν . δευτέραδὲὁμοίααὕτη , Ἀγαπήσειςτὸνπλησίονσουὡςσεαυτόν . ἐνταύταιςταῖςδυσὶνἐντολαῖςὅλοςὁνόμοςκρέματαικαὶοἱπροφῆται . To these verbal resemblances must be added remarkable identity of teaching in these successive chapters. Everything that is said about revenge, or about injuring others, is exactly identical with the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount; our duty towards rulers exactly reproduces the lesson given in St. Matthew’ s Gospel; the words concerning the relation of ‘ love’ to ‘ law’ might be an extract from the Gospel: the two main lines of argument in ch. xiv, the absolute indifference of all external practices, and the supreme importance of not giving a cause of offence to any one are both directly derived from the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 18:6, Matthew 18:7, 15:Matthew 18:11-20). This resemblance is brought out very well by a recent writer (Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, p. 312): ‘ Indeed it is not too much to add that the Apostle’ s description of the kingdom of God (Romans 14:17) reads like a brief summary of its description in the same Sermon on the Mount; the righteousness, peace, and joy, which formed the contents of the kingdom in the Apostle’ s conception are found side by side in the Saviour’ s Beatitudes; nor can we fail to notice how both St. Matthew and St. Luke contrast the anxious care for meat and drink with seeking in the first place for the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Nor must it be forgotten that Paul’ s fundamental idea of righteousness may be said to be rooted in the teaching of Jesus.’ It is well known that there are definite references by St. Paul to the words of our Lord: so 1 Thessalonians 4:15 = Matthew 24:31; 1 Corinthians 7:10 = Mark 10:9; 1 Corinthians 9:14 = Luke 10:7; as also in the case of the institution of the Last Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:24. Reminiscences also of the Sermon on the Mount may be found in other Epistles, e. g. James 4:9 = Matthew 5:4; James 5:12 = Matthew 5:33; 1 Peter 3:9 = Matthew 5:39; 1 Peter 4:14 = Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, and elsewhere. The resemblances are not in any case sufficient either to prove the use of any document which we possess in its present form, or to prove the use of a different document (see below); but they do show that the teaching of the Apostles was based on some common source, which was identical both in substance and spirit with those words of our Lord contained in the Gospels. They suggest further that even in cases where we have no direct evidence that Apostolic teaching is based on the Gospel narrative it does not follow that our Lord Himself did not originate it. For Christianity is older than any of its records. The books of the N. T. reflect, they did not originate, the teaching of early Christianity. Moreover, our Lord originated principles. It was these principles which inspired His followers; some of the words which are the product of and which taught those principles are preserved, some are not; but the result of them is contained in the words of the Apostles, which worked out in practical life the principles they had learnt directly or indirectly from the Christ. A much more exact and definite conclusion is supported with very great industry by Alfred Resch in a series of investigations, the first of which is Agrapha, Aussercanonische Evangelien-fragmente in Texte und Untersuchungen, 5:4. He argues (pp. 28, 29) that the acquaintance shown by St. Paul with the words and teaching of Jesus implies the use of an Urcanonische Quellenschrift, which was also used by St. Mark, as well as the other N. T. writers. It would be of course beside our purpose to examine this theory, but so far as it concerns the passages we are considering it may be noticed: (1) That so far as they go there would be no reason why all St. Paul’ s teaching should not have been derived from our present Gospels. He does not profess to be quoting, and the verbal reminiscences might quite well represent the documents we possess. (2) That it is equally impossible to argue against the use of different Gospels. The only legitimate conclusion is that there must have been a common teaching of Jesus behind the Apostle’ s words which was identical in spirit and substantially in words with that contained in our Synoptic Gospels. Some stress is laid by Resch (pp.245, 302 ff.) on passages which are identical in Romans and 1 Peter. So Romans 12:17 = 1 Peter 3:9; Romans 13:1, Romans 13:3 = 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 2:14. The resemblance is undoubted, but a far more probable explanation is that 1 Peter is directly indebted to the Romans (see Introduction § 8). There is no reason to cite these as ‘ Words of the Lord’ ; yet it is very probable that much more of the common teaching and even phraseology of the early Church than we are accustomed to imagine goes back to the teaching of Jesus. Tert. Tertullian. Jos. Josephus. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus A Cod. Alexandrinus B Cod. Vaticanus L Cod. Angelicus P Cod. Porphyrianus Bas. Basil. Chrys. Chrysostom. Orig. Origen. D Cod. Claromontanus F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus Boh. Bohairic. Vulg. Vulgate. Clem.-Alex. Clement of Alexandria. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen Syrr. Syriac. Arm. Armenian. Aeth. Ethiopic. Eus. Eusebius. &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: AV. Authorized Version. E Cod. Sangermanensis codd. codices. Sah. Sahidic. Amb. Ambrose. Euthym.-Zig. Euthymius Zigabenus. Aug. Augustine. ON TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE 14:1-15:13. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular practices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples; nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5). Every one should make up his own mind. These things are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account (vv. 6-12). We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe firmly that nothing is harmful in itself, but it becomes so to the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God’ s work in a brother’ s soul. Far better abstain from flesh and wine altogether (vv. 13-21). Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur guilt; for it is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23). This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the community. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. We should not seek our own good, but that of others; following the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures; those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement comes, grant you all— weak and strong, Jew and Gentile— to be of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (15:1-7). For Christ has received you all alike. To both Jew and Gentile He has a special mission. To the Jews to exhibit God’ s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13). 14:1-15:13. The Apostle now passes on to a further point; the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been condemning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs more openly the ‘ strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing the error of the ‘ weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic of the moral teaching of the Epistle— the freedom of Christian faith, the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v.15) refers to ver. 14:10, and Origen (Comm. in Rom. x.43, Lomm. vii. p. 453) to ver. 23. Of Marcion’ s use of the rest of the chapter we know nothing. On chaps. 15, 16, see Introduction, § 9. 1. τὸνδὲἀσθενοῦντατῇπίστει : cf. Romans 4:19; 1 Corinthians 8:7, 1 Corinthians 8:9, 1 Corinthians 8:10, 1 Corinthians 8:11; 1 Corinthians 9:22. ‘ Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules. προσλαμβάνεσθε , ‘ receive into full Christian intercourse and fellowship.’ The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping man: Psa_26 (27) 10 ὁπατήρμουκαὶἡμήτηρμουἐγκατέλιπόνμε , ὁδὲκύριοςπροσελάβετόμε : so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. Rom. 49:6 ἐνἀγάπῃπροσελάβετοἡμᾶςὁδεσπότης . But (2) it is also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companionship: 2 Macc. 8:1 τοὺςμεμενηκόταςἐντῷἸουδαισμῷπροσλαβόμενοισυνήγαγονεἰςἑξακισχιλίους . These two uses are combined in 15:7 ‘ All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’ μὴεἰςδιακρίσειςδιαλογισμῶν , ‘ but not to pass judgements on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian community, but do not let them find that they have been merely received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous thoughts are perpetually being condemned. διακρίσεις , from διακρίνω to ‘ judge,’ ‘ decide,’ ‘ distinguish,’ means the expression of judgements or opinions, as Hebrews 5:14 ‘ judgement of good or evil,’ 1 Corinthians 12:10 ‘ judgement or discernment of spirits.’ διαλογισμῶν means ‘ thoughts,’ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, hesitation (Luke 24:38), disputes (Philippians 2:14; 1 Timothy 2:8), or generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpretation of διακρίσεις is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘ not so as to raise doubts in his mind,’ or (with Gif.) ‘ not unto discussions of doubts’ ; but neither interpretation can be so well supported. 2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both sides. ὄςμὲν̣̣̣ὁδὲἀσθενῶν . With the variation in construction cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; Mark 4:4; Luke 8:5. The second ὁ is not for ὃς , but is to be taken with ἀσθενῶν . πιστεύει , ‘ hath faith to eat all things’ ; his faith, i.e. his grasp and hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are. λάχαναἐσθίει , ‘ abstains from all flesh meat and eats only vegetables.’ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over-scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399). 3. ὁἐσθίων̣̣̣ὁδὲμὴἐσθίων . St. Paul uses these expressions to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit of censoriousness of the other. ὁΘεὸςγὰραὐτὸνπροσελάβετο . See ver. 1. God through Christ has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has not required. 4. σὺτίςεἶ ; St. Paul is still rebuking the ‘ weak.’ The man whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of God; to God therefore he is responsible. τῷἰδίῳκυρίῳ . Dat. of reference: cf. vv. 5-8. ‘ It is to his own master that he is responsible.’ He it is to whom he must show whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. πίπτει (11:11, 11:22) of moral failure; στήκει (1 Corinthians 16:13; Philippians 1:27) of moral stability. In 1 Corinthians 10:12 the two are contrasted, ὥστεὁδοκῶνἑστάναιβλεπέτωμὴπέσῃ . σταθήσεταιδέ : cf. Matthew 12:25. In spite of your censoriousness he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him upright. The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He has called. For δυνατεῖ (א A B C D F G), which is an unusual word, later MSS. substituted δυνατός (P, Bas. Chrys.), or δυνατὸς̣̣̣ἐστιν (T R with L and later MSS.). For ὁΚύριος (א A B C P, Sah. Boh., &c.) ὁΘεός was introduced from ver. 3 (D E F G L, &c., Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.), perhaps because of the confusion with τῷΚυρίῳ above. 5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulousness, — the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colossians for the same reason. Galatians 4:10, Galatians 4:11 ‘ Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Colossians 2:16, Colossians 2:17 ‘ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’ s.’ St. Paul does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the question, as illustrating the general discussion of the chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured in his own conscience that he is doing right. Various commentators have discussed the relation of these directions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Iovinian. ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter ieiunia et saturitatem aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loquitur, qui in Christum credentes, adhuc iudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indifferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupulousness in any form. So these same principles would apply equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days or Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline. Tisch. (Exo_8) reads here ὃςμὲνγάρ with א A C P, Vulg. Boh. (which he quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The γάρ is omitted by א c B D E F G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. T. R. RV. and inserted between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly Western in character. κρίνει , ‘ estimates,’ ‘ approves of’ : Plat. Phil. p. 57 E is quoted. παρά , ‘ passing by’ and so ‘ in preference to.’ πληροφορείσθω . The difference between the Christian and the Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of the Spirit; he must do what his νοῦς , his highest intellectual faculty, tells him to be right. On the word πληροφορείσθω see on 4:21 and cf. Clem. Rom. 42 πληροφορηθέντεςδιὰτῆςἀναστάσεως . 6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account to Him. ὁφρονῶν : ‘ esteem,’ ‘ estimate,’ ‘ observe.’ Κυρίῳ , emphatic, is Dat. of reference as above, ver. 4. ὁἐσθίων … ὁμὴἐσθίων : see ver. 3. Both alike make their meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in αὐχαριστεῖ to the Christian εὐχαριστία After Κυρίῳφρονεῖ the T. R. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt.) add καὶὁμὴφρονῶντὴνἡμέρανΚυρίῳοὐφρονεῖ , a gloss which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of καί before ὁἐσθίων (TR. with some minuscules). That the words καὶὁμὴφρονῶν were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the superfluous καί (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). Various instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits καὶὁμὴἐσθίων … εὐχ . τῷθεῷ : 66 omits ἡμέραν to ἡμέραν ; minusc. 3 omit ἐσθίει to ἐσθίει . 7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general rule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give account of our lives to Him and not to one another. 7. οὐδεῖςγὰρ … ἀποθνήσκει . In life and in death we are not isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that concerns us alone. 8. τῷΚυρίῳ : ‘ but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ’ s sight and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ’ s sight we shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we live or die we are the Lord’ s.’ Wetstein compares Pirqê Aboth, iv. 32 ‘ Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.’ It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. 8. There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him. 9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape. εἰςτοῦτο is explained by ἵνακυριεύσῃ . ἀπέθανεκαὶἔζησεν must refer to Christ’ s death and resurrection. ἔζησεν cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately varied from the order ζῶμενκαὶἀποθνήσκωμεν of the previous verses; (2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was a period of humiliation (Romans 8:34; 2 Corinthians 4:10, 2 Corinthians 4:11); (3) because of the tense; the aorist ἔζησεν could be used of a single definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be used of the continuous life on earth. νεκρῶνκαὶζώντων . The inversion of the usual order is owing to the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, ἀπέθ . καὶἔζης . For the κυριότης of Christ see Philippians 2:9, Philippians 2:11. For Χριστός the T. R. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads καὶΧριστόςἀπέθανενκαὶἔζησεν , the older and most difficult reading (א A B C, Boh., Arm. Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by ἀπέθ . καὶἀνέστη F G Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers; by ἀπέθ . καὶἀνέστ , καὶἀνέζησεν T. R. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by ἀπέθ . καὶἀνέστ . καὶἔζησεν , LP. &c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by ἔζης . καὶἀπέθ . καὶἀνέστ . DE. Iren. 10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or censorious exclusiveness between man and man. σὺδὲτίκρίνεις refers to ὁμὴἐσθίων , ἢκαὶσύ to ὁἐσθίων . παραστησόμεθατῷβήματιτοῦΘεοῦ . Cf. Acts 27:24 Καίσαρίσεδεῖπαραστῆναι . For βῆμα , in the sense of a judge’ s official seat, see Matthew 27:19; Job 19:13, &c. God is here mentioned as Judge because (see 2:16) He judges the world through Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:10 the expression is τοὺςγὰρπάνταςἡμᾶςφανερωθῆναιδεῖἔμπροσθεντοῦβήματοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . It is quite impossible to follow Liddon in taking Θεοῦ of Christ in his Divine nature; that would be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how easily St. Paul passes from Χριστός to Θεός . The Father and the Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son. Θεοῦ must be accepted as against Χριστοῦ on decisive authority. The latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2 Corinthians 5:10. 11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of God’ s judgement by quoting Isaiah 45:23 (freely acc. to the LXX). In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete fulfilment at the final judgement. ἐξομολογήσεταιτῷΘεῷ , ‘ shall give praise to God,’ according to the usual LXX meaning; cf. 15:9, which is quoted from Ps. 17:50 (18:50). ζῶἐ͂γώ , λέγωΚύριος is substituted for κατ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦὀμνὑω , cf. Numbers 14:28 &c.; for πᾶσαγλῶσσακ .τ .λ . the LXX reads ὀμεῖταιπ . γ . τὸνΘεόν . 12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of us has to give account. If Θεῷ be read (see below), it may again be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Κύριος to Θεός (see on ver. 10 and cf. 14:3 with 15:7). There are several minor variations of text. οὖν is omitted by B D F G P and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read itaque. For δώσει of the T. R. WH. read ἀποδώσει with B D F G Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit (but Cyprian dabit). τῷΘεῷ at the end of the sentence is omitted by B F G Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group which is almost entirely Western in character. 13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely round and treats the question from the other side. All this is true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences of others. Μηκέτιοὖν … κρίνωμεν marks the transition to the second question by summing up the first. κρίνατε : for the play on words cf. 12:3, 14, 13:1. ‘ Do not therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i. e. determine this as your course of conduct’ : cf. 2 Corinthians 2:1. τὸμὴτιθέναι … τῷἀδελφῷ … σκάνδαλον . τιθέναι is suggested by the literal meaning of σκάνδαλον , a snare or stumbling-block which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word σκάνδαλον and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord`s words reported in Matthew 18:6 f. See also his treatment of the same question in 1 Corinthians 8:9 f. πρόσκομμα … ἤ should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As Weiss points out, the fact that ἤ is omitted in all authorities which omit πρ . proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. πρόσκομμα would come in from 1 Corinthians 8:9 and ver. 20 below. 14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated. ἐνΚυρίῳἸησοῦ . The natural meaning of these words is the same as that of ἐνΧρ . (9:1); to St. Paul the indifference of all meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly to the words of Christ (Mark 7:15; Matthew 15:11); when doing so his formula is παρέλαβονἀπὸτοῦΚυρίου . κοινόν . The technical term to express those customs and habits, which, although ‘ common’ to the world, were forbidden to the pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII, i. 1 τὸνκοινὸνβίονπροῃρημένους : 1 Macc. 1:47, 62; Acts 10:14 ὅτιοὐδέποτεἔφαγονπᾶνκοινὸνκαὶἀκάθαρτον . δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ , ‘ in itself,’ ‘ in its own nature.’ That δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of א B C also of א (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, § 7) supported by many later MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. In Domine ergo Iesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and Chrys. τῇφύσειφησὶνοὐδὲνἀκάθαρτον and (2) by the contrast with τῷλογιζομένῳ . δι ʼ αὐτοῦ , ‘ through Christ’ (so Theodrt. and later comm.) is a correction. εἰμὴτῷλογιζομένῳκ .τ .λ . Only if a man supposes that the breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he is led to commit sin; for example, if at the common Eucharistic meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it would clearly be wrong. 15. εἰγάρ . The γάρ (which has conclusive manuscript authority) implies a suppressed link in the argument. ‘ You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if,’ &c. λυπεῖται . His conscience is injured and wounded, for he willfully and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger of perishing . ὑπὲροὗΧριστὸςἀπέθανε . Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:10, 1 Corinthians 8:11. Christ died to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give up some favourite food? 16. μὴβλασφημείσθωκ .τ .λ . Let not that good of yours, i. e. your consciousness of Christian freedom , become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the reputation of the community with the outside world. The above interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it (Mey-W. Lips. Liddon). 17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause a breach in the harmony of the Church; for eating and drinking are not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit. ἡβασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ . An echo of our Lord’ s teaching. The phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life; so especially 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, where it is laid down that certain classes shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already exhibited in this world (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:20). The term is, of course, derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish conceptions of an actual earthly kingdom; how far exactly such conceptions have been spiritualized in St. Paul it may be difficult to say. βρῶσιςκαὶπόσις . If, as is probable, the weak brethren are conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point in this expression. ‘ If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking as to make a point of indulging in what you will at all costs, you are in danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom to be one of material plenty’ (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3). These words are often quoted as condemning any form of scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not St. Paul’ s idea. He means that ‘ eating and drinking’ are in themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely insignificant in comparison with ‘ righteousness’ and ‘ peace’ and ‘ joy.’ δικαιοσύνηκ .τ .λ . This passage describes man’ s life in the kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. δικαιοσύνη therefore is not used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, but means righteousness or just dealing; εἰρήνη is the state of peace with one another which should characterize Christians; χαρά is the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community; cf. Acts 2:46 μετελάμβανοντροφῆςἐνἀγαλλιάσεικαὶἀφελότητικαρδίας . 18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the principle implied by these virtues , is Christ’ s servant, i. e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain the approval of men. δόκιμοςτοῖςἀνθρώποις . The contrast to βλασφημείσθω of ver. 16. Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which will recommend a man to his fellow-men. δόκιμος , able to stand the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). 19. οἰκοδομῆς : cf. 1 Corinthians 14:26 πάνταπρὸςοἰκοδομὴνγινέσθω , 1 Thessalonians 5:11 οἰκοδομεῖτεεἷςτὸνἕνα . διώκομεν is really more expressive than the somewhat obvious correction διώκωμεν (C D E, Latt.). D E F G add φυλάξωμεν after ἀλλήλους . 20. κατάλυε … ἔργον keeps up the metaphor suggested by οἰκοδομῆς . ‘ Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community which God has founded in Christ.’ Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:9 Θεοῦγάρἐσμενσυνεργοί . Θεοῦγεώργιον , Θεοῦοἰκοδομήἐστε . The words εἰρήνη and οἰκοδομή both point to the community rather than the individual Christian. πάνταμὲνκαθαρά : cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23 πάνταἔξεστιν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάντασυμφέρει . πάνταἔξεστιν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάνταοἰκοδομεῖ . ἀλλὰκακόν : the subject to this must be supplied from πάντα . It is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries)? or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W.. and others)? In the former case διὰπροσκόμματος (on the διά cf. 2:27, 4:11) means ‘ so as to cause offence,’ in the latter ‘ so as to take offence’ . Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1). 21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure others is a noble act. καλόν : cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1 and for the thought 1 Corinthians 8:13 διόπερ , εἰβρῶμασκανδαλίζειτὸνἀδελφόνμου , οὐμὴφάγωκρέαεἰςτὸναἰῶνα , ἵναμὴτὸνἀδελφόνμουσκανδαλίσω . We know the situation implied in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as instances. ‘ I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to offend my brother.’ The T. R. adds after προσκόπτει the gloss ἣσκανδαλίζεταιἣἀσθενεῖ with B Western and Syrian authorities (א aא c B D E F G L P, &c., Vulg. Sah., Bas. Chrys.). They are omitted by א A C ב , Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B; cf. 11:6. 22. σὺπίστινἣνἔχεις . Your faith is sufficient to see that all these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself. The preponderance of authorities (א A B C, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.) compels us to read ἣνἔχεις . The omission of ἥν (D E F G L P ב , Vulg. codd. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement. μακάριοςκ .τ .λ . Blessed (see on 4:6, 7) because of his strong faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him that he may do without any doubt or misgiving κρίνων , to ‘ judge censoriously so as to condemn,’ cf. 2:1, 3, 27. δοκιμάζει (1:28, 2:18) to ‘ approve of after testing and examining.’ 23. ὁδὲδιακρινόμενος : see on 4:20. If a man doubts or hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he would have no doubt or hesitation. πᾶνδὲὃοὐκἐκπίστεως , ἁμαρτίαἐστίν . πίστις is subjective, the strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. ‘ Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being convinced of their indifference is itself sin.’ This maxim (1) is not concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith. This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra Iulianum iv, one passage of which (§ 32) may be quoted: Ex quo colligitur, etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt; quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has been used to support the two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chrysostom says, ‘ When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.’ The words do not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing Christians; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a ‘ good conscience’ ; ‘ everything which is not done with a clear conscience is sin.’ So Aquinas, Summa i. 2,qu. xix, art. v. omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam. On the doxology (16:25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see the Introduction, § 8. Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa. Oltr. Oltramare. Va. Vaughan. Lips. Lipsius. Gif. Gifford. Bas. Basil. Chrys. Chrysostom. Sah. Sahidic. Boh. Bohairic. &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: Vulg. Vulgate. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen Tisch. Tischendorf. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus A Cod. Alexandrinus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus P Cod. Porphyrianus Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c B Cod. Vaticanus D Cod. Claromontanus E Cod. Sangermanensis F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus Syrr. Syriac. T. R. Textus Receptus. RV. Revised Version. WH. Westcott and Hort. L Cod. Angelicus Arm. Armenian. Aeth. Ethiopic. Orig. Origen. Cypr. Cyprian. Aug. Augustine. Pesh. Peshitto. Jos. Josephus. ב Ԡ Cod. Patiriensis Latt. Latin. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector a codd. codices. 15:1. The beginning of chap. 15 is connected immediately with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until ver. 13 is reached; but towards the close, especially in vv. 7-13, the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the Church— the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. ὀφείλομενδέ . Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples weak though they may be. οἱδύνατοι not, as in 1 Corinthians 1:26, the rich or the powerful, but as in 2 Corinthians 12:10, 2 Corinthians 13:9, of the morally strong. βαστάζειν : cf. Galatians 6:2 ἀλλήλωντὰβάρηβαστάζετε . In classical Greek the ordinary word would be φέρειν , but βαστάζειν seems to have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of bearing the cross both literally (John 19:17), and figuratively (Luke 14:27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq., Symm. and Theod. in Isaiah 40:11, 56:12; in the two latter in Isaiah 53:9; in Matthew 8:17 quoting Isaiah 53:3: in none of these passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. 1, Epist. ad Diog. § 10 (quoted by Lft.). μὴἑαυτοῖςἀρέσκειν : cf. 1 Corinthians 10:33 καθὼςκἀγὼπάνταπᾶσινἀρέσκω , μὴζητῶντὸἐμαυτοῦσυμφέρον , where St. Paul is describing his own conduct in very similar circumstances. He strikes at the root of Christian disunion, which is selfishness. 2. εἰςτὸἀγαθὸνπρὸςοἰκοδομήν : cf. 14:16 ὑμω 1͂ντὸἀγαθόν , 19 τὰτῆςοἰκοδομῆςτῆςεἰςἀλλήλους . The end or purpose of pleasing them must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further defined by οἰκοδομή , their edification. These words limit and explain what St. Paul means by ‘ pleasing men.’ In Galatians 1:10 (cf. Ephesians 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:4) he had condemned it. In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 he had made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own. The γάρ after ἕκαστος of the T. R. should be omitted. For ἡμῶν some authorities (F G P ב , Vulg., many Fathers) read ὑμῶν . 3. καὶγὰρὁΧριστὸςκ .τ .λ . The precept just laid down is enforced by the example of Christ (cf. 14:15). As Christ bore our reproaches, so must we bear those of others. καθὼςγέγραπται . St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence, changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Psa_48 (49):10 quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. 9:7. The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would apply as being emphatically ‘ the just one.’ Ver. 4 is quoted John 15:25, ver. 9a in John 2:17, ver. 9b in Romans 15:3, ver. 12 in Matthew 27:27-30, ver. 21 in Matthew 27:34, and John 19:29, ver. 22 f. in Romans 11:9, ver. 25a in Acts 1:20. (See Liddon, ad loc.) οἱὀνειδισμοίκ .τ .λ . In the original the righteous man is represented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore. 4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T. προεγράφη , ‘ were written before,’ in contrast with ἡμετέραν : cf. Ephesians 3:3; Jude 1:4, but with a reminiscence of the technical meaning of γράφειν for what is written as Scripture. διδασκαλίαν , ‘ instruction’ : cf. 2 Timothy 3:16 πᾶσαγραφὴθεόπνευστοςκαὶὠφέλιμοςπρὸςδιδασκαλίαν . τὴνἐλπίδα : the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no circumstances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth (Philippians 1:20); a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for it makes more certain his power of endurance and his experience of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. 5:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3. This passage, and that quoted above from 2 Timothy 3:16, lay down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O. T. which underlies St. Paul’ s use of it. But while emphasizing its value they also limit it. The Scriptures are to be read for our moral instruction, ‘ for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness’ ; for the perfection of the Christian character, ‘ that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good work’ ; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in Christ. Two points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of the great moral and spiritual truths of the O. T., and the witness of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more than this. There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which may be noted but need not be accepted; ἐγράφη (with Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for προεγράφη ; πάντα before εἰςτὴνἡμ . (with P); τῆςπαρακλήσεως repeated after ἔχωμεν (with Clem.-Al.). The T. R. with א א c A L P ב , &c. substitutes προεγράφη for ἐγράφη in the second place, and with Ccor D E F G P, &c., Vulg. Boh. Harcl. omits the second διά . 5. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle returns to the subject of vv. 1-3, and sums up his teaching by a prayer for the unity of the community. ὁδὲΘεὸςτῆςὑπομονῆςκαὶτῆςπαρακλήσεως : cf. ὁΘεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης (ver. 33; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:20), τῆςἐλπίδος (ver. 13), πάσηςπαρακλήσεως (2 Corinthians 1:3), πάσηςχάριτος (1 Peter 5:10). τὸαὐτὸφρονεῖν : cf. Philippians 2:2-5 πληρώσατέμουτὴνχαράν , ἵνατὸαὐτὸφρονῆτε … τοῦτοφρονεῖτεἐνὑμῖνὅκαὶἐνΧρ . Ἰ . κατὰΧριστὸνἸησοῦν : cf 2 Corinthians 11:17 ὅλαλῶ , οὐκατὰΚύριονλαλῶ : Colossians 2:8 οὐκατὰΧρ .: Ephesians 4:24 τὸνκαινὸνἄνθρωποντὸνκατὰΘεὸνκτισθέντα (Romans 8:27, which is generally quoted, is not in point). These examples seem to show that the expression must mean ‘ in accordance with the character or example of Christ.’ δῴη for δοίῃ , a later form, cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:16, 2 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:25; Ephesians 1:17 (but with variant δώῃ in the last two cases). Χρ . Ἰης . (B D E G L, &c., Boh. Chrys.), not Ἰης . Χρ . א A C F P ב Vulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt. 6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity of life. ὁμοθυμαδόν , ‘ with unity of mind.’ A common word in the Acts (1:14, &c.). τὸνΘεὸνκαὶπατέρατοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . This expression occurs also in 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. In Colossians 1:3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is τῷΘεῷπατρὶτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸ . Χ . Two translations are possible: (1) ‘ God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Mey.-W.. Gif. Lid., Lips.). In favour of this it is pointed out that while πατήρ expects some correlative word, Θεός is naturally absolute; and that ὁΘεὸςκαὶπατήρ occurs absolutely , an argument the point of which does not seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in their natural meaning, ‘ The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ ; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Ephesians 1:17 ὁΘεὸςτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸ . Χ .: Matthew 27:46; John 20:17; Hebrews 1:9. 7. The principles laid down in this section of the Epistle are now generalized. All whom Christ has received should, without any distinction, be accepted into His Church. This is intended to apply especially to the main division existing at that time in the community, that between Jewish and Gentile Christians. διὸπροσλαμβάνεσθεἀλλήλουςκ .τ .λ .: the command is no longer to the strong to admit the weak, but to all sections of the community alike to receive and admit those who differ from them; so St. Paul probably said ὑμᾶς , not ἡμᾶς . The latter he uses in ver. 1, where he is identifying himself with the ‘ strong,’ the former he uses here, where he is addressing the whole community. On διό cf. Ephesians 2:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:11: on προσλαμβάνεσθε see 14:1, 3. ὑμᾶς is read by א A C E F G L Vulg. Boh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ἡμᾶς by B D P ב . B is again Western, and its authority on the distinction between ἡμᾶς and ὑμᾶς is less trustworthy than on most other points (see WH. ii. pp. 218, 310). εἰςδόξανΘεοῦ with προσελάβετο : ‘ in order to promote the glory of God.’ As the following verses show, Christ has summoned both Jews and Greeks into His kingdom in order to promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His faithfulness, in the other His mercy. So in Philippians 2:11 the object of Christ’ s glory is to promote the glory of God the Father. 8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gentiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save them; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the families of the earth might be blessed: both must realize that the aim of the whole is to proclaim God’ s glory. This passage is connected by undoubted links (διό ver. 7; λέγωγάρ ver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. 8. and ch. 11. This connexion makes it probable that ‘ the relations of Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the relations of the weak and the strong.’ (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 29.) διάκονον … περιτομῆς : not ‘ a minister of the circumcised,’ still less a ‘ minister of the true circumcision of the spirit,’ which would be introducing an idea quite alien to the context, but ‘ a minister of circumcision’ (so Gifford, who has an excellent note), i. e. to carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which was circumcision; so 2 Corinthians 3:6 διακόνουςκαινῆςδιαθήκης . In the Ep. to the Galatians (4:4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was ‘ born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’ On the Promise and Circumcision see Genesis 12:1-3,Genesis 17:1-14. The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as follows: (1) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circumcised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews (cf. Romans 2:9, Romans 2:10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the blessing came to the Jews ὑπὲρἀληθείας to preserve God’ s consistency, it came to the Gentiles ὑπὲρἐλέους for God’ s loving-kindness. γεγενῆσθαι , which should be read with א A E L P ב ; it was altered into the more usual aorist γενέσθαι (B C D F G), perhaps because it was supposed to be co-ordinated with δοξάσαι . τὰςἐπαγγελίαςτῶνπατέρων : cf. 9:4,5. 9. τὰδὲἔθνη … δοξάσαι . Two constructions are possible for these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to λέγωγάρ (Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would be to contrast ὑπὲρἐλέους with ὑπὲρἀληθείας . But the real antithesis of the passage is between βεβαιῶσαιτὰςἐπαγγελίας and τὰἔθνηδοξάσαι : and hence (2) τὰδὲ … ἔθνη … δοξάσαι should be taken as subordinate to εἰςτό and co-ordinate with βεβαιῶσαι (Gif. Mey. Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (4:11, 12, 16, 17). καθὼςγέγραπται . The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from the O. T. διὰτοῦτοκ .τ .λ .: taken almost exactly from the LXX of Ps. 17:50 (18). In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations: in the Messianic application Christ is represented as declaring that among the Gentiles, i. e. in the midst of, and therefore together with them, He will praise God. ἐξομολογήσομαι , ‘ I will praise thee’ : cf. 14:11. 10. Εὐφράνθητεκ .τ .λ .: from the LXX of Deu 32:43. The Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, ‘ Rejoice, O ye nations, His people.’ Moses is represented as calling on the nations to rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen people shall unite in the praise of God. 11. Αἰνεῖτεκ .τ .λ .: Psa_116(117):1. LXX. An appeal to all nations to praise the Lord. There are slight variations in the Greek text and in the LXX. For πάντατὰἔθνητὸνΚύριον C F G L have τὸνΚ . π . τ . ἔ . agreeing with the order of the LXX. ἑπαινεσάτωσαν is read by א A B C D E Chrys. ἐπαινέσατε by late MSS. with later LXX MSS. 12. Ἔσταιἡῥίζακ .τ .λ .: from Isaiah 11:10, a description of the Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish kingdom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation follows the LXX, which is only a paraphrase of the Hebrew; the latter runs (RV.) ‘ And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the Gentiles seek.’ 13. The Apostle concludes by invoking on his hearers a blessing— that their faith may give them a life full of joy and peace, that in the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope. ὁΘεὸςτῆςἐλπίδος : cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words of the previous quotation. πάσηςχαρᾶςκαὶεἰρήνης . The joy and peace with God which is the result of true faith in the Christian’ s heart. On εἰρήνη see 1:7. For πληρῶσαι (most MSS.) B F G have the curious variant πληροφορῆσαι . B reads ἐνπάσῃχάρᾳκαὶεἰρήνῃ and omits εἰςτὸπερισσεύειν : the peculiarities of this MS. in the last few verses are noticeable. D E F G omit ἐντῷπιστεύειν . The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is discussed in the Introduction (§ 9). It will be convenient to mention in the course of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have been made to special passages. In 15:1-13 the only serious objection is that which was first raised by Baur and has been repeated by others since. The statements in this section are supposed to be of too conciliatory a character; especially is this said to be the case with ver. 8. ‘ How can we imagine,’ writes Baur, ‘ that the Apostle, in an Epistle of such a nature and after all that had passed on the subject, would make such a concession to the Jewish Christians as to call Jesus Christ a minister of circumcision to confirm the promises of God made to the Fathers?’ To this it may be answered that that is exactly the point of view of the Epistle. It is brought out most clearly in 11:17-25; it is implied in the position of priority always given to the Jew (1:16; 2:9, 10); it is emphasized in the stress continually laid on the relations of the new Gospel to the Old Testament (ch. 4, &c.), and the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (1:2; 9:4). Baur’ s difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of St. Paul. For other arguments see Mangold, Der Rö merbrief, pp. 81-100. What sect or party is referred to in Rom_14? There has been great diversity of opinion as to the persons referred to in this section of the Epistle to the Romans, but all commentators seem to agree in assuming that the Apostle is dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two parties in that Church. 1. The oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices (Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c.). In favour of this may be quoted the earlier portion of the fifteenth chapter, where there is clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But against this opinion it is pointed out that such Jewish objections to ‘ things offered to idols,’ or to meats killed in any incorrect manner, or to swine’ s flesh, have nothing to do with the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21). 2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy all the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in the habit of observing scrupulously certain days: and this custom did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect. 3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character represented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his general theory he regards them as representing the majority of the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul’ s language he clearly represents the ‘ strong’ as directing the policy of the community. They are told to receive ‘ him that is weak in faith’ ; they seem to have the power to admit him or reject him. All that he on his side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism. Nor is the first part of the theory really more satisfactory. Of the later Ebionites we have very considerable knowledge derived from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (Haer. xxx), but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period nearly two centuries earlier. Nor again is it conceivable that St. Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient manner in which he writes in this chapter. 4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world (Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). This view fulfils the three conditions of the case. The Essenes were Jewish, they were ascetic, and they observed certain days. If the theory is put in the form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish community there, it is possible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul’ s language in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will find it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion and life. Hort (Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes: ‘ The true origin of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain: but much the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the Colossian Church.’ But later he modified his opinion (Judaistic Christianity, p. 128): ‘ There is no tangible evidence for Essenism out of Palestine.’ All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church. But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former experience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred in Galatia or Corinth. Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 126) recognizes this feature in the doctrinal portion of the Epistle: ‘ It is a remarkable fact,’ he writes, ‘ respecting this Epistle to the Romans … that while it discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and fulness, it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.’ Unfortunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical portion of the Epistle: if he had done so it would have presented just the solution required by all that he notices. ‘ There is no reference,’ he writes, ‘ to a burning controversy.’ ‘ The matter is dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.’ He contrasts the tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes that St. Paul’ s object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion. If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘ the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he says ‘ one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When he speaks of ὁφρονῶντὴνἡμέραν , ὁμὴἐσθίων he is not thinking of any special body of people but rather of special types. When again in ver. 21 he says: ‘ It is good not to eat flesh, or drink wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total abstainers; he merely means ‘ even the most extreme act of self-denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: ‘ Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (1 Corinthians 8:13). It is not considered necessary to argue from these words that abstinence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian sectaries; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties which had produced the Apostolic decree; there were the difficulties in Galatia, ‘ Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years’ ; there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in his experience come across instances of the various ascetic tendencies which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles. We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when there is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas. The ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness. He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining it from all sides. And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘ faith’ ; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’ s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’ s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died. APOLOGY FOR 15:14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that I am unacquainted with your goodness and deep spiritual knowledge. In writing to you thus boldly I am only fulfilling my duty as Apostle to the Gentiles; the priest who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile Churches (vv. 14-17). And this is the ground of my boldness. For I can boast of my spiritual labours and gifts, and of my wide activity in preaching the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so before me, but where Christ was not yet named (vv. 18-21). 14. The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement. St. Paul begins as in 1:8 with a reference to the good report of the church. This he does as a courteous apology for the warmth of feeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section; but a comparison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any such compliment, shows that St. Paul’ s words must be taken to have a very real and definite meaning. πέπεισμαιδέ : cf. 8:38, ‘ Though I have spoken so strongly it does not mean that I am not aware of the spiritual earnestness of your church.’ καὶαὐτὸςἐγὼπερὶὑμῶν , ὅτικαὶαὐτοί : notice the emphasis gained by the position of the words. ‘ And not I inquire of others to know, but I myself, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.’ Chrys. μεστοί : cf. Romans 1:29, where also it is combined with πεπληρωμένοι . πάσηςγνώσεως : ‘ our Christian knowledge in its entirety.’ Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:2 καὶἐὰνἔχωπροφητείανκαὶεἰδῶτὰμυστήριαπάντακαὶπᾶσαντὴνγνῶσιν , καὶἐὰνἔχωπᾶσαντὴνπίστινκ .τ .λ . γνῶσις is used for the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive grasp of the real principles of Christianity. τῆς is read by א B P, Clem.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc. It is omitted by A C D E F G L, &c., Chrys. Theodrt. ἀγαθωσύνης : cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 5:9; used only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. Generally it means ‘ goodness’ or ‘ uprightness’ in contrast with κακία , as in Psalms 51:5. (52:5.) ἠγάπησαςκακίανὑπὲρἀγαθωσύνην : defined more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from ἀγαθός of active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined with γνῶσις , because the two words represent exactly the qualities which are demanded by the discussion in chap. 14. St. Paul demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith as a whole, and on the other ‘ goodness of heart,’ which may prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is fully assured, realized in the Roman community. Forms in -σύνη are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic writers. In the N. T. we have ἐλεημοσύνη , ἀσχημοσύνη , ἁγιωσύνη , ἱερωσύνη , μεγαλωσύνη : see Winer, § xvi. 2 β (p. 118, ed. Moulton). δυνάμενοικαὶἀλλήλουςνουθετεῖν . Is it laying too much stress on the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint of St. Paul’ s aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits. It is difficult to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between this verse and 1:11 or the exhortations of chap. 14, whatever view he may hold concerning St. Paul’ s general attitude towards the Roman Church. It would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to compliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. 14. and throughout the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more point. ‘ I am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers you may incur, and I warn you especially owing to your prominent and important position.’ 15. τολμηρότερον . The boldness of which St. Paul accuses himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was ἀπὸμέρους , ‘ in part of the Epistle’ ; 6:12 ff., 19; 8:9; 11:17 ff.;12:3; 13:3 ff., 13 ff., 14.; 15:1, have been suggested as instances. ἐπαναμιμνήσκων . Wetstein quotes ἔκαστονὑμῶν , καίπερἀκριβῶςσἴδοτα , ὅμωςἐπαναμνῆσαιβούλομαι Demosthenes, Phil. 74, 7 The ἐπί seems to soften the expression ‘ suggesting to your memory.’ St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more clearly and definitely the recognized principles and commands of the Gospel. διὰτὴνχάριντὴνδοθεῖσάνμοι . On St. Paul’ s Apostolic grace cf. 1:5 δι ʼ οὗἐλάβομενχάρινκαὶἀποστολήν : 12:3 λέγωγὰρδιὰτῆςχάριτοςτῆςδοθείσηςμοι . It is probably preferable to read τολμηροτέρως (A B, WH.) for τολμηρότερον . The TR. adds ἀδελφοί after ἔγραψαὑμῖν against the best authorities (א A B C Boh., Orig. Aug. Chrys.); the position of the word varies even in MSS. in which it does occur. ὑπό is a correction of the TR. for ἀπό (א B F Jo.-Damasc.). 16. λειτουργόν seems to be used definitely and technically as in the LXX of a priest. See esp. 2 Esdras 20:36 (Nehemiah 10:37) τοῖςἱερεῦσιτοῖςλειτουργοῦσινἐνοἴκῳΘεοῦἡμῶν . So in Hebrews 8:2 of our Lord, who is ἀρχιερεύς and τῶνἁγίωνλειτουργός : see the note on 1:9. Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras 20:39 (Neh. 10:40) καὶοἱἱερεῖςκαὶοἱλειτουργοί , but there is no such idea here. ἱερουργοῦντα , ‘ being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the offering which he makes is the Gentile Church. ἱερουργεῖν means (1) to ‘ perform a sacred function,’ hence (2) especially to ‘ sacrifice’ ; and so τὰἱερουργήθεντα means ‘ the slain victims’ and then (3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its construction is two-fold: (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed; so Bas. in Ps. cxv καὶἱερουργήσωσοιτὴντῆςαἰνέσεωςθυσίαν ; or (2) ἱερουργεῖντι may be put for ἱερουργόντινοςεἶναι , so 4 Macc. 7:8 (v. l.) τοὺςἱερουργοῦνταςτὸννόμον : Greg. Naz. ἱερουργεῖνσωτηρίαντινός (see Fri. ad loc. from whom this note is taken). ἡπροσφορά . With this use of sacrificial language, cf. 12:1, 2. The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings, the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable (εὐπρόσδεκτος , 1 Peter 2:5). Those were animals without spot or blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. 8:9, 11). For the construction of προσφορά cf. Hebrews 10:10 π . τοῦσώματοςἸ . Χρ . 17. ἔχωοὖντὴνκαύχησιν . The τήν should be omitted (see below). ‘ I have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is defending his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: (1) His Apostolic mission, διὰτὴνχάριντὴνδοθεῖσάνμοι , as proved by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis therefore is on ἐνΧρ . Ἰ ., and τὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν . With καύχησιν cf. 3:27, 1 Corinthians 15:31; with the whole verse, 2 Corinthians 10:13 ἡμεῖςδὲοὐχὶεἰςτὰἄμετρακαυχησόμεθα … 17 ὁδὲκαυχώμενοςἐνΚυρίῳκαυχάσθω . The RV. has not improved the text by adding τήν before καύχησιν . The combination א A L P, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that of B D E F G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain. 18. οὐγὰρτολμήσωκ .τ .λ . ‘ For I will not presume to mention any works but those in which I was myself Christ’ s agent for the conversion of Gentiles.’ St. Paul is giving his case for the assumption of authority . It is only his own labour or rather works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ’ s working in him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to exercise authority over a Gentile Church like the Roman. With τολμήσω (א A C D E F G L P, Boh.. Harcl., etc.) cf. 2 Corinthians 10:12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with κατειργάσατο 2 Corinthians 12:12, Romans 7:13, &c. with λόγῳκαὶἔργῳ , ‘ in speech or action,’ 2 Corinthians 10:11. 19. ἐνδυνάμεισημείωνκ .τ .λ .: cf. 2 Corinthians 12:12 τὰμὲνσημεῖατοῦἀποστόλουκατειργάσθηἐνὑμῖνἐνπάσῃὑπομονῇ , σημείοιςτεκαὶτέρασικαὶδυνάμεσι : Hebrews 2:4 συνεπιμαρτυροῦντοςτοῦΘεοῦσημείοιςτεκαὶτέρασικαὶποικίλαιςδυνάμεσικαὶΠνεύματοςἉγίουμερισμοῖςκατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν : 1 Corinthians 12:28. The combination σημεῖακαὶτέρατα is that habitually used throughout the N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the same denotation, but different connotations. τέρας implies anything marvellous or extraordinary in itself, σημεῖον represents the same event, but viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often a third word δυνάμεις is added which implies that these ‘ works’ are the exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expression by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and wonders; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the Apostolic χάρις . See Trench, Miracles xci; Fri. ad loc. There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he possesses the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles. The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is twofold: on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will the first argument hold against a personal assertion? and does not the narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly correct sense of the word were definitely intended? ἐνδυνάμειΠνεύματοςἉγίοὺ : cf. ver. 13, and on the reading here see below. St. Paul’ s Apostolic labours are a sign of commission because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more than natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit with which he is filled. This seems one of those passages in which the value of the text of B where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuous (cf. 4:1). It reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) πνεύματος without any addition. א L P &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add θεοῦ , A C D F G Boh. Vulg. Arm., Ath. &c. read ἁγίου . Both were corrections of what seemed an unfinished expression. ἀπὸἹερουσαλὴμκαὶκύκλῳμέχριτοῦἸλλυρικοῦ . These words have caused a considerable amount of discussion. 1. The first question is as to the meaning of κύκλῳ . (1) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey.-W.) interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were καὶτοῦκύκλῳ , and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be pointed out that κύκλῳ in the instances quoted of it in this sense (Genesis 35:5; Genesis 41:48) seems invariably to have the article. (2) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. ‘ from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.’ So Oecumenius κύκλῳἵναμὴτὴνκατ ʼ εὐθεῖανὁδὸνἐνθυμηθῇς , ἀλλὰκατὰτὰπέριξ and to the same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly supported by Xen. Anab. VII. i. 14 καὶπότεραδιὰτοῦἱεροῦὄρουςδέοιπορεύασθαι , ἢκύκλῳδιὰμέσηςτῆςΘρᾴκης , and substantially by Mark 6:6. 2. It has also been debated whether the words ‘ as far as Illyria’ include or exclude that country. The Greek is ambiguous; certainly it admits the exclusive use. μέχριθαλάσσης can be used clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narrative of the Acts (τὰμέρηἐκεῖνα Acts 20:2; cf. Titus 3:12) suggests that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain. A perfectly tenable explanation of the words would be that if Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact represent the limits. If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here; but a passage in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul’ s mind when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples inhabiting it, he would have been told that it was ‘ Illyria.’ The term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii. 7. 4). The word Illyria might apparently be used at this period in two senses. (1) As the designation of a Roman province it might be used for what was otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north of Macedonia and west of Thrace. (2) Ethnically it would mean the country inhabited by Illyrians, a portion of which was included in the Roman province of Macedonia. In this sense it is used in Appian, Illyrica 1, 7; Jos. Bell. Iud. II. xvi. 4; and the passage of Strabo quoted above. πεπληρωκέναιτὸεὐαγγέλιοντοῦΧριστοῦ : cf. Colossians 1:25 ἧςἐγενόμηνἐγὼδιάκονοςκατὰτὴνοἰκονομίαντοῦΘεοῦτὴνδοθεῖσάνμοιεἰςὑμᾶς , πληρῶσαιτὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ . In both passages the meaning is to ‘ fulfil,’ ‘ carry out completely,’ and so in the AV. ‘ to fully preach.’ In what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below. 20. οὕτωδὲφιλοτιμούμενονκ .τ .λ . introduces a limitation of the statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. οὕτω is explained by what follows. φιλοτιμούμενον (1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 5:9) means to ‘ strive eagerly,’ having lost apparently in late Greek its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Otium Norv. iii. p. 100, who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vit. Caes. liv. ὠνομάσθη : ‘ so named as to be worshipped.’ Cf. 2 Timothy 2:19; Isaiah 26:13; Amos 6:10. ἀλλότριονθεμέλιον . For ἀλλότριον cf. 2 Corinthians 10:15, 2 Corinthians 10:16. St. Paul describes his work (1 Corinthians 3:10) as laying a ‘ foundation stone’ : ὡςσοφὸςἀρχιτέκτωνθεμέλιονἔθηκα · ἀλλὸςδὲἐποικοδομεῖ : and so generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). 21. ἀλλὰκαθὼςγέγραπται . St. Paul describes the aim of his mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words chosen from the O. T. The quotation which follows is taken verbally from the LXX of Isa 52:15, which differs but not essentially from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonishment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of Jehovah. ‘ That which hath not been told them they shall see.’ The LXX translates this ‘ those to whom it was not told shall see,’ and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not been mentioned. Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them , are still objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (11:8-10) the clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and here he has not been any happier. He omits ver. 20, but keeps the quotation in ver. 21, yet this quotation is clearly suggested by the preceding words οὐχὅπουὠνομάσθηΧριστός . It would be strange if an interpolator were to make the sequence of thought more coherent. The general objections to the passage seem to be— (1) It is argued that St. Paul had never preached in Jerusalem, nor would have been likely to mention that place as the starting-point of his mission; that these words therefore are a ‘ concession made to the Jewish Christians,’ and hence that the chapter is a result of the same conciliation tendency which produced the Acts. Most readers would probably be satisfied with being reminded that according to the Acts St. Paul had preached in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28, Acts 9:29). But it may be also pointed out that St. Paul is merely using the expression geographically to define out the limits within which he had preached the Gospel; while he elsewhere (Romans 11:26) speaks of Sion as the centre from which the Gospel has gone forth. (2) It is asserted that St. Paul had never preached in Illyricum. There is some inconsistency in first objecting to the language of this passage because it agrees with that of the Acts, and then criticizing it because it contains some statement not supported by the same book. But the reference to Illyricum has been explained above. The passages of the Acts quoted clearly leave room for St. Paul having preached in districts inhabited by Illyrians. He would have done so if he had gone along the Egnatian way. But the words do not necessarily mean that he had been in Illyria, and it is quite possible to explain them in the sense that he had preached as far as that province and no further. In no case do they contain any statement inconsistent with the genuineness of the passage. (3) It is objected that St. Paul could in no sense use such a phrase as πεπληρωκέναιτὸεὐαγγέλιον . But by this expression he does not mean that he had preached in every town or village, but only that everywhere there were centres from which Christianity could spread. His conception of the duties of an Apostle was that he should found churches and leave to others to build on the foundation thus laid (1 Corinthians 3:7, 1 Corinthians 3:10). As a matter of fact within the limits laid down Christianity had been very widely preached. There were churches throughout all Cilicia (Acts 15:41), Galatia, and Phrygia (Galatians 1:1; Acts 18:23). The three years’ residence in Ephesus implied that that city was the centre of missionary activity extending throughout all the province of Asia (Acts 19:10) even to places not visited by St. Paul himself (Colossians 2:1). Thessalonica was early a centre of Christian propaganda (1 Thessalonians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:10), and later St. Paul again spent some time there (Acts 20:2). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians contains in the greeting the words σὺντοῖςἁγίοιςπᾶσιτοῖςοὖσινἐνὅλῃτῇἈχαίᾳ , showing that the long residence at Corinth had again produced a wide extension of the Gospel. As far as the Adriatic coast St. Paul might well have considered that he had fulfilled his mission of preaching the Gospel, and the great Egnatian road he had followed would lead him straight to Rome. (4) A difficulty is found in the words ‘ that I may not build on another man’ s foundation.’ It is said that St. Paul has just expressed his desire to go to Rome, that in fact he expresses this desire constantly (1:5, 13; 12:3; 15:15), but that here he states that he does not wish to build on another man’ s foundation; how then it is asked could he wish to go to Rome where there was already a church? But there is no evidence that Christianity had been officially or systematically preached there (Acts 28:22), and only a small community was in existence, which had grown up chiefly as composed of settlers from other places. Moreover, St. Paul specially says that it is for the sake of mutual grace and encouragement that he wishes to go there; he implies that he does not wish to stay long, but desires to press on further westward (ver. 24). THE APOSTLE’ S PLANS 15:22-33. I have been these many times hindered from coming to you, although I have long eagerly desired it. Now I hope I may accomplish my wish in the course of a journey to Spain. But not immediately. I must first take to Jerusalem the contributions sent thither by Macedonia and Achaia— a generous gift, and yet but a just recompense for the spiritual blessings the Gentile Churches have received from the Jews. When this mission is accomplished I hope I may come to you on my way to Spain (vv. 22-29). Meantime I earnestly ask your prayers for my own personal safety and that the gifts I bear may be received by the Church. I shall then, if God will, come to you with a light heart, and be refreshed by your company. May the God of peace make His peace to light upon you (vv. 30-33). 22. διὸκαί . The reason why St. Paul had been so far prevented from coming to Rome was not the fear that he might build on another man’ s foundation, but the necessity of preaching Christ in the districts through which he had been travelling; now there was no region untouched by his apostolic labours, no further place for action in those districts. ἐνεκοπτόμην : Galatians 5:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; 1 Peter 3:7. τὰπολλά , ‘ these many times,’ i.e. all the times when I thought of doing so, or had an opportunity, as in the RV.; not, as most commentators, ‘ for the most part’ (Vulg. plerumque). πολλάκις , which is read by Lips. with B D E F G, is another instance of Western influence in B. 15:23. νυνὶδὲμηκέτιτόπονἔχων , ‘ seeing that I have no longer opportunity for work in these regions.’ τόπον , as in 12:19, q.v.; Ephesians 4:27; Hebrews 12:17, ‘ opportunity,’ ‘ scope for action.’ κλίμασι , ‘ tracts’ or ‘ regions’ (2 Corinthians 11:10; Galatians 1:21; often in Polybius). ἐπιποθίαν does not occur elsewhere; but ἐπιποθεῖν (Romans 1:11; 2 Corinthians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 9:14; Philippians 1:8; Philippians 2:26; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:4; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:2) and ἐπιπόθησις (2 Corinthians 7:7, 2 Corinthians 7:11) are not uncommon. On its signification, ‘ a longing desire,’ see on 1:11. ἱκανῶν : a very favourite word in the Acts of the Apostles (9:23; 18:18, &c.,). ‘ It is likely enough that St. Paul’ s special interest in the Christian community at Rome, though hardly perhaps his knowledge of it, dates from his acquaintance with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth. This was somewhere about six years before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans, and that interval would perhaps suffice to justify his language about having desired to visit them ἀπὸἱκανῶνἐτῶν (a rather vague phrase, but not so strong as the ἀπὸπολλῶνἐτῶν , which was easily substituted for it)’ Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 11. For ἐπιποθίανδὲἔχων Western authorities (D F G) read ἔχω , an attempt to correct the grammar of the sentence. ἱκανῶν , read by B C 37. 59. 71, Jo.-Damasc., is probably right for πολλῶν , which is supported by all other authorities and is read by R.V. 24. In this verse the words ἐλεύσομαιπρὸςὑμᾶς , which are inserted by the TR. after Σπανίαν , must be omitted on conclusive manuscript evidence, while γάρ must as certainly be inserted after ἐλπίζω . These changes make the sentence an anacolouthon, almost exactly resembling that in 5:12 ff., and arising from very much the same causes. St. Paul does not finish the sentence because he feels that he must explain what is the connexion between his visit to Spain and his desire to visit Rome, so he begins the parenthesis ἐλπίζωγάρ . Then he feels he must explain the reason why he does not start at once; he mentions his contemplated visit to Jerusalem and the purpose of it. This leads him so far away from the original sentence that he is not able to complete it; but in ver. 28 he resumes the main argument, and gives what is the logical, but not the grammatical, apodosis (cf. 5:18). ὡςἂνπορεύωμαι . The ὡςἄν is temporal: cf. Philippians 2:23; 1 Corinthians 11:34: on this latter passage Evans, in Speaker’ s Comm. p. 328, writes: ‘ When I come: rather according as I come: the presence of the ἄν points to uncertainty of the time and of the event: for this use comp. Aesch. Eum. 33 μαντεύομαιγὰρὡςἂνἡγῆταιθεός .’ προπεμφθῆναι : 1 Corinthians 16:6, 1 Corinthians 16:11; 2 Corinthians 1:16; need not mean more than to be sent forward on a journey with prayers and good wishes. The best commentary on this verse is ch. 1:11 ff. Lipsius again strikes out vv. 23, 24 and below in ver. 28 δι ʼ ὑμῶνεἰςτὴνΣπανίαν — a most arbitrary and unnecessary proceeding. The construction of the passage has been explained above and is quite in accordance with St. Paul’ s style, and the desire to pass further west and visit Spain is not in any way inconsistent with the desire to visit Rome. The existence of a community there did not at all preclude him from visiting the city, or from preaching in it; but it would make it less necessary for him to remain long. On the other hand, the principal argument against the genuineness of the passage, that St. Paul never did visit Spain (on which see below ver. 28), is most inconclusive; a forger would never have interpolated a passage in order to suggest a visit to Spain which had never taken place. But all such criticism fails absolutely to realize the width and boldness of St. Paul’ s schemes. He must carry the message of the Gospel ever further. Nothing will stop him but the end of his own life or the barrier of the ocean. 25. St. Paul now mentions a further reason which will cause some delay in his visit to Rome, and his missionary journey to Spain. διακονῶντοῖςἁγίοις : cf. 2 Corinthians 8:4 τὴνκοινωνίαντῆςδιακονίαςτῆςεἰςτοὺςἁγίους . The expression ‘ ministering to the saints’ has become almost a technical expression in St. Paul for the contributions made by the Gentile Christians to the Church at Jerusalem. 26. εὐδόκησαν implies that the contribution was voluntary, and made with heartiness and good-will: see on Romans 10:1 ; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 1:15. κοινωνίαν : of a collection or contribution 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 9:13 ἁπλότητιτῆςκοινωνίαςεἰςαὐτοὺςκαὶεἰςπάντας and κοινωνεῖν Romans 12:13 ταῖςχρείαιςτῶνἁγίωνκοινωνοῦντες . πτωχούς : cf. Galatians 2:10 μόνοντῶνπτωχῶνἵναμνημονεύωμεν . On the poor Christians at Jerusalem see James 2:2 ff.; Renan, Hist. des Origines, &c., vol. iv. ch. 3. In Jerusalem the Sadducees, who were the wealthy aristocracy, were the determined opponents of Christianity, and there must have been in the city a very large class of poor who were dependent on the casual employment and spasmodic alms which are a characteristic of a great religious centre. The existence of this class is clearly implied in the narrative at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles. There was from the very first a considerable body of poor dependent on the Church, and hence the organization of the Christian community with its lists (1 Timothy 5:19) and common Church fund (ἀπὸτοῦκοινοῦ Ign. Ad Polyc. iv. 3) and officers for distributing alms (Acts 6:1-4) must have sprung up very early. 27. εὐδόκησανκ .τ .λ . St. Paul emphasizes the good-will with which this contribution was made by repeating the word εὐδόκησαν ; he then points out that in another sense it was only the repayment of a debt. The Churches of the Gentiles owed all the spiritual blessings they enjoyed to that of Jerusalem, ‘ from whom is Christ according to the flesh,’ and they could only repay the debt by ministering in temporal things. πνευματικοῖς … σαρκικοῖς . Both are characteristically Pauline words. 1 Corinthians 9:11 εἰἡμεῖςὑμῖντὰπνευματικὰἐσπείραμεν , μέγαεἰῆμεῖςὑμῶντὰσαρκικὰθερίσομεν ; σαρκικοῖς is used without any bad association. ἐκοινώνησαν . The word κοινωνέω , of which the meaning is of course ‘ to be a sharer or participator in,’ may be used either of the giver or of the receiver. The giver shares with the receiver by giving contributions, so Romans 12:13 (quoted on ver. 26); the receiver with the giver by receiving contributions, so here. The normal construction in the N. T. is as here with the dative: once (Hebrews 2:14) it is used with the genitive, and this construction is common in the O. T. (Lft. on Galatians 6:6). The contributions for the poor in Jerusalem are mentioned in Romans 15:26, Romans 15:27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff; Acts 24:17, and form the subject of the ablest and most convincing section in Paley’ s Horae Paulinae. Without being in any way indebted to one another, and each contributing some new element, all the different accounts fit and dovetail into one another, and thus imply that they are all historical. ‘ For the singular evidence which this passage affords of the genuineness of the Epistle, and what is more important, as it has been impugned, of this chapter in particular, see Paley’ s Horae Paulinae, chap. ii. No. 1.’ Jowett, ad loc., and for some further reff. see Introd. § 4. 28. ἐπιτελέσας … σφραγισάμενος . St. Paul resumes his argument and states his plans after the digression he has just made on what lies in the immediate future. With ἐπιτελέσας (a Pauline word), cf. Philippians 1:6; it was used especially of the fulfilment of religious rites (Hebrews 9:6 and in classical authors), and coupled with λειτουργῆσαι above, suggests that St. Paul looks upon these contributions of the Gentile communities as a solemn religious offering and part of their εὐχαριστία for the benefits received. σφραγισάμενος , ‘ having set the seal of authentication on.’ The seal was used as an official mark of ownership: hence especially the expression ‘ the seal of baptism’ (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13; see on 4:11). Here the Apostle implies that by taking the contributions to Jerusalem, and presenting them to the Church, he puts the mark on them (as a steward would do), showing that they are the fruit to the Church of Jerusalem of those spiritual blessings which through him had gone forth to the Gentile world. εἰςτὴνΣπανίαν . It has been shown above that it is highly probable that St. Paul should have desired to visit Spain, and that therefore nothing in these verses throws any doubt on the authenticity of the chapter as a whole or of any portions of it. A further question arises, Was the journey ever carried out? Some fresh light is perhaps thrown on the question by Professor Ramsay’ s book The Church and the Empire. If his arguments are sound, there is no reason to suppose that if St. Paul was martyred at Rome (as tradition seems to suggest) he must necessarily have suffered in what is ordinarily called the Neronian persecution. He might have been beheaded either in the later years of Nero’ s reign or even under Vespasian. So that, if we are at liberty to believe that he survived his first imprisonment, there is no need to compress, as has been customary, the later years of his missionary activity. It is on these assumptions easier to find room for the Spanish journey. Have we evidence for it? Dismissing later writers who seem to have had no independent evidence, our authorities are reduced to two, the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, and Clement of Rome. We cannot lay much stress on the former; it is possible perhaps that the writer had independent knowledge, but it is certainly more probable that he is merely drawing a conclusion, and not quite a correct one, from this Epistle: the words are sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. The passage in Clement (§ 5) runs as follows: Παῦλοςὑπομονῆςβραβεῖονὑπέδειξεν , ἑπτάκιςδεσμὰφορέσας , φυγαδευθείς , λιθασθείς , κῆρυξγενόμενοςἔντετῇἀνατολῇκαὶἐντῇδύσει , τὸγενναῖοντῆςπίστεωςαὐτοῦκλέοςἔλαβεν , δικαιοσύνηνδιδάξαςὅλοντὸνκόσμονκαὶἐπὶτὸτέρματῆςδύσεωςἐλθών , καὶμαρτυρήσαςἐπὶτῶνἡγουμένων , οὕτωςἀπηλλάγητοῦκόσμουκαὶεἰςτὸνἅγιοντόπονἐπορεύθη . This passage is much stronger, and Lightfoot’ s note in favour of interpreting the words τὸτέρματῆςδύσεως as meaning Spain is very weighty; but is it quite certain that a Jew, as Clement probably was (according to Lightfoot himself), speaking of St. Paul another Jew would not look upon Rome relatively to Jerusalem as the τέρματῆςδύσεως , ‘ the western limit’ ? We in England might for example speak of Athens as being in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is also some force in Hilgenfeld’ s argument that ἐλθών and μαρτυρήσας should be taken together. For these reasons the question whether St. Paul ever visited Spain must remain very doubtful. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 16:1-16. I commend to you Phoebe our sister. Receive her as becometh members of a Christian Church. For she has stood by many others, and myself as well (vv. 1, 2). Greet Prisca and Aquila. Greet all those whose names or persons I know, who are members of your community (vv. 3-16). 1. συνίστημι . The ordinary word for to ‘ commend,’ ‘ introduce’ ; see on 3:5, a derivative of which appears in the phrase συστατικαὶἐπιστολαί (2 Corinthians 3:1; for its use in the later ecclesiastical writings see Suicer, Thesaurus). These letters played a very large part in the organization of the Church, for the tie of hospitality (cf. 12:13), implying also the reception to communion, was the great bond which united the separate local Churches together, and some protection became necessary against imposture. φοίβην . Nothing is otherwise known of Phoebe, nor can we learn anything from the name. She was presumably the bearer of this letter. διάκονον , ‘ a deaconess.’ The only place in which this office is referred to by name in the N. T. (for 1 Timothy 3:11, 1 Timothy 5:3 ff. cannot be quoted). The younger Pliny (Ep. X. xcvi. 8) speaks of ministrae: quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere. They do not appear elsewhere to be referred to in any certain second-century writing; but constant reference to them occurs in the Apostolic Constitutions, in the earlier books under the name of διάκονος (2:26; 3:15), in the later of διακόνισσα (8:19, 20, 28). Of the exact relation of the ‘ deaconess’ to the ‘ widows’ (1 Timothy 5:3) it is not necessary to speak, as we have no sufficient evidence for so early a date; it is quite clear that later they were distinct as bodies, and that the widows were considered inferior to the deaconesses (Apost. Const. iii. 7); it is probable however that the deaconesses were for the most part chosen from the widows. That the reference to a ‘ deaconess’ is in no sense an anachronism may be inferred both from the importance of διακονία in the early Church, which had quite clearly made it necessary for special male officials to be appointed, and from the separate and secluded life of women. From the very beginning of Christianity— more particularly in fact at the beginning— there must have been a want felt for women to perform for women the functions which the deacons performed for men. Illustrations of this need in baptism, in visiting the women’ s part of a house, in introducing women to the deacon or bishop, may be found in the Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 15, &c.). So much is clear. An office in the Church of this character, we may argue on á priori grounds, there must have been; but an order in the more ecclesiastical sense of the term need not have existed. διάκονος is technical, but need hardly be more so than is προστάτις in ver. 2. (The arguments of Lucht against the authenticity of portions of these two verses are examined very fully by Mangold, Der Rö merbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzung, pp. 136 ff.) τῆςἐκκλησίαςτῆςἐνΚεγχρεαῖς . Cenchreae was the port of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf. During St. Paul’ s stay at Corinth that city had become the centre of missionary activity throughout all Achaia (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1), and the port towards Ephesus, a place where there must have been many Jews living, could easily be a centre of the Christian Church. Its position would afford particularly an opportunity for the exercise by Phoebe of the special duties of hospitality. 2. ἀξίωςτῶνἁγίων , ‘ in a manner worthy of the saints,’ i. e. ‘ of the Church.’ Not only to provide for her wants, but to admit her to every spiritual privilege as ‘ in the Lord.’ προστάτις , a ‘ succourer’ or ‘ helper’ ; this almost technical word is suggested by παραστῆτε . It is the feminine form of προστάτης , used like the Latin patronus for the legal representative of the foreigner. In Jewish communities it meant the legal representative of wealthy patron: see Schü rer, Die Gemeinde-Verfassung, &c., Ins. 31: ενθαδεκειτε | γαιχπροχτατηχ | οχιοχεζηχεν | ετηοβενειρη | κοιμηχιχχοψ , cf. also C.I.G. 5361. We also find the word used of an office-bearer in a heathen religious association, see Foucart, Associations Religieuses, p. 202, Ins. 20, line 34 (= C.I.G. 126) δοκιμαζέτωδὲὁπροστάτηςκαὶὁἀρχιερανιστὴςκαὶὁγραμματεὺςκαὶοἱταμίαικαὶσύνδικοι . Here the expression suggests that Phoebe was a person of some wealth and position who was thus able to act as patroness of a small and struggling community. 3. ΠρίσκανκαὶἈκύλαν . So the MSS. here by preponderating authority for Πρίσκιλλακ . Ἀ . Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca, and both are Roman names. In Acts 18:2 the reading is Ἀκύλαν … καὶΠρίσκιλλανγυναῖκααὐτοῦ , in ver. 18 ΠρίσκιλλακαὶἈκύλας ; in 1 Corinthians 16:19 ἈκύλαςκαὶΠρίσκα ; in 2 Timothy 4:19 ΠρίσκανκαὶἈκύλαν (by preponderating authority). The fact that Prisca is so often mentioned first suggests that she was the more important of the two. 4. οἵτινες … τὸνἑαυτῶντράχηλονκ .τ .λ . probably refers to some great danger which they had run on his behalf. It may have been the great tumult at Ephesus, although this was somewhat recent. If so the danger then incurred may have been the reason that they had left that city and returned for a time to Rome. The special reference to the Churches of the Gentiles perhaps arises from the fact that, owing to their somewhat nomadic life, they were well known to many Christian Churches. Aquila and Priscilla The movements of Aquila and Priscilla have been considered to be so complicated as to throw doubts on the authenticity of this section of the Epistle, or to suggest that it was addressed not to the Church at Rome, but to the Church of Ephesus. From Acts 18:1, Acts 18:2 we learn that Aquila was a Jew of Pontus. He and his wife Prisca had been compelled to leave Rome in 52 a.d. by the decree of Claudius. They retired to Corinth, where they first became acquainted with St. Paul. With him they went to Ephesus, where they remained some time; they were there when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, and had a church in their house (ἀσπάζεταιὑμᾶςἐνΚυρίῳπολλὰἈκύλαςκαὶΠρίσκασὺντῇκατ ʼ οἶκοναὐτῶνἐκκλησίᾳ 1 Corinthians 16:19). This Epistle was written probably about twelve months before the Epistle to the Romans. In 2 Timothy 4:19, written in all probability at least eight years later, they appear again at Ephesus. Now, is not the life ascribed to them too nomadic? And is not the coincidence of the church in their house remarkable? The answer is that a nomadic life was the characteristic of Jews at that day, and was certainly a characteristic of Aquila and Priscilla (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 299, and Renan, Les Apô tres, pp. 96, 97, Zahn, Skizzen, p. 169). We know that although Aquila was a Jew of Pontus, yet he and his wife lived, within the space of a few years, at Rome, at Corinth, and at Ephesus. Is it then extremely improbable that they should travel in after years, probably for the sake of their business? And if it were so, would they not be likely to make their house, wherever they were, a place in which Christians could meet together? On á priori grounds we cannot argue against the possibility of these changes. Are there any positive arguments for connecting them with the Roman Church? De Rossi, in the course of his archaeological investigations, has suggested two traces of their influence, both of which deserve investigation. (i) Amongst the older churches of Rome is one on the Aventine bearing the name of St. Prisca, which gives a title to one of the Roman Cardinals. Now there is considerable evidence for connecting this with the names of Aquila and Priscilla. In the Liber Pontificalis, in the life of Leo III (795-816), it is described as the ‘ titulus Aquilae et Priscae’ (Duchesne, Lib. Pont. II. p. 20); in the legendary Acts of St. Prisca (which apparently date from the tenth century) it is stated that the body of St. Prisca was translated from the place on the Ostian road where she had been buried, and transferred to the church of St. Aquila and Prisca on the Aventine (Acta Sanctorum, Jan. Tom. ii. p. 187 et deduxerunt ipsam ad urbem Romam cum hymnis et canticis spiritualibus, iuxta Arcum Romanum in ecclesia sanctorum Martyrum Aquilae et Priscae), and the tradition is put very clearly in an inscription apparently of the tenth century which formerly stood over the door of the church (C. Ins. Christ. ii. p. 443): Haec domus est Aquilae seu Priscae Virginis Almae Quos lupe Paule tuo ore vehis domino Hic Petre divini Tribuebas fercula verbi Sepius hocce loco sacrificans domino. Many later testimonies are referred to by De Rossi, but they need not here be cited. For the theory that this church is on the site of the house of Prisca and Aquila, De Rossi finds additional support in a bronze diploma found in 1776 in the garden of the church bearing the name of G. Marius Pudens Cornelianus: for in the legendary Acts of Pudens, Pudenziana, and Praxedis, Priscilla is stated to have been the mother of Pudens (Acta Sanct. Mai. Tom. iv. p. 297), and this implies some connexion between the names of Aquila and Priscilla and the family of Pudens. The theory is a plausible one, but will hardly at present stand examination. In the first place the name of Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca) is not the oldest borne by the church; from the fourth to the eighth century it seems always to have been the titulus S. Priscae (see Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 1:501, 51745), and although the origin of this name is itself doubtful, it is hardly likely that if the locality had borne the name of Aquila and Priscilla, that name would first have been lost and then revived. It is much more probable that the later name is an attempt to connect the biblical account with this spot and to explain the origin of the name of Prisca. Nor is the second piece of evidence of any greater weight. The acts of Pudens and his daughters, supposed to be narrated by the person called St. Pastor, who was a contemporary of Pius the bishop and addressed his letters to Timothy, are clearly legendary, and little or no stress can be laid on the mention of Priscilla as the mother of Pudens. The object of the Acta is in fact to invent a history for martyrs whose names were known, and who were for some reason grouped together. But why were they thus grouped? The reason probably is given in the statement at the end, that they were buried in the cemetery of Priscilla. These names would probably be found in the fourth century in that cemetery, attached to graves close to one another, and would form the groundwork of the Acta. There may still be some connexion between the names, which may or may not be discovered, but there is not at present any historical evidence for connecting the titulus St. Priscae with the Aquila and Priscilla of the N. T. (see de Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. i. No. 5 (1867), p. 45 ff.) (ii) A second line of argument seems more fruitful. The explorations of De Rossi in the Coemeterium Priscillae, outside the Porta Salaria, have resulted in the discovery that as the Coemeterium Domitillae starts from a burying-place of Domitilla and her family, so that of Priscilla originates in the burying-place of Acilius Glabrio and other members of the Acilian gens. This seems to corroborate the statement of Dio Cassius (67:14) that the Acilius Glabrio who was consul with Trajan in a.d. 91 was a Christian and died as such, and implies that Christianity had penetrated into this as into other leading Roman families. Now the connexion with the subject immediately before us is as follows. The same researches have shown that a name of the females of the Acilian gens is Priscilla or Prisca. For instance, in one inscription we read: M’ ACILIUS V. … . C. V. ..C Aquila was a Jew of Pontus: how then does it happen that his wife, if not he himself, bore a Roman name? The answer seems to be suggested by these discoveries. They were freedmen of a member of the Acilian gens, as Clemens the Roman bishop was very probably the freedman of Flavius Clemens. The name Prisca or Priscilla would naturally come to an adherent of the family. The origin of the name Aquila is more doubtful, but it too might be borne by a Roman freedman. If this suggestion be correct, then both the names of these two Roman Christians and the existence of Christianity in a leading Roman family are explained. Two other inscriptions may be quoted, as perhaps of interest. The first is clearly Christian: Aauiliae Priscae in Pace. The second C.I.L. vi.12273 may be so. The term Renata might suggest that it is but also might be Mithraic: D. M. AQUILIA ∙ RENATA QVAE ∙ V ∙ A ∙ N … SE ∙ VIVA ∙ POSVIT ∙ SIBI CVRANTE ∙ AQVILIO IVSTO ALVMNO ∙ ET ∙ AQVILIO PRISCO ∙ FRATRE The argument is not demonstrative, but seems to make the return of Aquila and Priscilla to Rome, and their permanent connexion with the Roman Church, probable. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iv. No. 6 (1888-9), p. 129 Aquila e Prisca et gli Acilii Glabrioni. Dr. Hort (Rom. and Eph. pp. 12-14), following a suggestion made by Dr. Plumptre (Biblical Studies, p. 417), points out that it is a curious fact that in four out of the six places in which the names occur that of the wife is the first mentioned. He connects the name with the cemetery of St. Prisca, and suggests that Prisca was herself a member of some distinguished Roman family. He points out that only Aquila is called a Jew from Pontus, not his wife. There is nothing inconsistent in this theory with that of the previous argument; and if it be true much is explained. It may however be suggested that for a noble Roman lady to travel about with a Jewish husband engaged in mercantile or even artisan work is hardly probable; and that the theory which sees in them freed members of a great household is perhaps the most probable. 5. καὶτὴνκατ ʼ οἶκοναὐτῶνἐκκλησίαν . There is no decisive evidence until the third century of the existence of special buildings used for churches. The references seem all to be to places in private houses, sometimes very probably houses of a large size. In the N.T. we have first of all (Acts 12:12) the house of Mary, the mother of John, where many were collected together and praying. Colossians 4:15 ἀσπάσασθετοὺςἐνΛαοδικείᾳἀδελφούς , καὶΝυμφᾶν , καὶτὴνκατ ʼ οἶκοναὐτῶνἐκκλησίαν : Philemon 1:2 καὶτῇκατ ʼ οἶκόνσονἐκκλησίᾳ : besides 1 Corinthians 16:19. At a later date we have Clem. Recog. x. 71 Theophilus, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecraret: De Rossi, Roma Sott. i. p. 209 Collegium quod est in domo Sergiae Paulinae. So in Rome several of the oldest churches appear to have been built on the sites of houses used for Christian worship. So perhaps San Clemente is on the site of the house of T. Flavius Clemens the consul (see Lightfoot, Clement. p. 94). There is no reason to suppose that this Church was the meeting-place of all the Roman Christians; similar bodies seem to be implied in vv. 14, 15. We may compare Acta Iustini Martyris § 2 (Ruinart) where however the speaker is of course intentionally vague: Quaesivit Praefectus, quem in locum Christiani convenirent. Cui respondit Iustinus, eo unumquemque convenire quo vellet ac posset. An, inquit, existimas omnes nos in eumdem locum convenire solitos? Minime res ita se habet … Tunc praefectus: Age, inquit, dicas, quem in locum conveniatis, et discipulos tuos congreges. Respondit Iustinus: Ego prope domum Martini cuiusdam, ad balneum cognomento Timiotinum, hactenus mansi. Ἐπαίνετος . Of him nothing is known: the name is not an uncommon one and occurs in inscriptions from Asia Minor, C.I.G. 2953 (from Ephesus), 3903 (from Phrygia). The following inscription from Rome is interesting, C.I.L. vi. 17171 dis ∙ man | epaeneti (sic) | epaeneti ∙ f | ephesio | t ∙ mvnivs | priscianvs | amico svo. ἀπαρχὴτῆςἈσίας : i. e. one of the first converts made in the Roman province of Asia: cp. 1 Corinthians 16:15 οἴδατετὴνοἰκίανΣτεφανᾶ , ὅτιἐστὶνἀπαρχὴτῆςἈχαίας , καὶεἰςδιακονίαντοῖςἁγίοιςἕταξανἑαυτούς . On the importance of first converts see Clem. Rom. § xlii κατὰχώραςοὖνκαὶπόλειςκηρύσσοντεςκαθίστανοντὰςἀπαρχὰςαὐτῶν , δοκιμάσαντεςτῷπνεύματι , εἰςἐπισκόπουςκαὶδιακόνουςτῶνμελλόντωνπιστεύύειν . This name caused great difficulty to Renan, ‘ What ! had all the Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome?’ ‘ All’ when analyzed is found to mean three persons of whom two had been residents at Rome, and the third may have been a native of Ephesus but is only said to have belonged to the province of Asia (cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 301). How probable it was that there should be foreigners in Rome attached to Christianity may be illustrated from the Acts of Justin which were quoted in the note on an earlier portion of the verse. These give an account of the martyrdom of seven persons, Justin himself, Charito, Charitana, Euelpistus, Hierax, Liberianus, and Paeon. Of these Justin we know was a native of Samaria, and had probably come to Rome from Ephesus, Euelpistus who was a slave of the Emperor was a native of Cappadocia, and Hierax was of Iconium in Phrygia. This was about 100 years later. Ἀσίας is supported by preponderating authority (א A B C D F G, Vulg, Boh. Arm. Aeth., Orig.-lat. Jo.-Damasc. — rst.) against Ἀχαΐας (L P &c., Syrr., Chrys. Theodrt.). For the idea of illustrating this chapter from inscriptions we are of course indebted to Bishop Lightfoot’ s able article on Caesar’ s household (Philippians, p. 169). Since that paper was written, the appearance of a portion of vol. vi. of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, that, namely, containing the inscriptions of the city of Rome; has both provided us with more extensive material and also placed it in a more convenient form for reference. We have therefore gone over the ground again, and either added new illustrations or given references to the Latin Corpus for inscriptions quoted by Lightfoot from older collections. Where we have not been able to identify these we have not, except in a few cases, thought it necessary to repeat his references. A large number of these names are found in Columbaria containing the monuments and ashes of members of the imperial household during the first century: these special collections are kept together in the Corpus (vi. 3926-8397). There is also a very large section devoted to other names belonging to the domus Augusti (vi. 8398-9101). A complete use of these materials will not be possible until the publication of the Indices to vol. vi. For a discussion of the general bearing of these references, see Introduction, § 9. 6. Μαρίαν (which is the correct reading) may like Μαριάμ be Jewish, but it may also be Roman. In favour of the latter alternative in this place it may be noticed that apparently in other cases where St. Paul is referring to Jews he distinguishes them by calling them his kinsmen (see on ver. 7). The following inscription from Rome unites two names in this list, C.I.L. vi. 22223 d ∙ m ∙ | mariae | ampliatae cet.; the next inscription is from the household, ib. 4394 mariae ∙ m ∙ l ∙ xanthe | nymphe ∙ fec ∙ de ∙ svo. ἥτιςπολλὰἐκοπίασενεἰςὑμᾶς This note is added, not for the sake of the Roman Church, but as words of praise for Maria herself. Μαρίαν is read by A B C P, Boh. Arm.; Μαριάμ by א D E F G L, &c., Chrys. The evidence for εἰςὑμᾶς , which is a difficult reading, is preponderating (א A B C P Syrr. Boh.), and it is practically supported by the Western group (D E F G, Vulg.), which have ἐνὑμῖν . The correction εἰςἡμᾶς is read by L, Chrys. and later authorities. 7. Ἀνδρόνικον : a Greek name found among members of the imperial household. The following inscription contains the names of two persons mentioned in this Epistle, both members of the household, C.I.L. vi. 5326 dis ∙ manibvs | c ∙ ivlivs ∙ heremes | vix ∙ ann ∙ xxxiii ∙ m ∙ v | dieb ∙ xiii | c ∙ ivlivs ∙ andronicvs | conlibertvs ∙ fec | bene ∙ merenti ∙ de ∙ se: see also 5325 and 11626 where it is the name of a slave. Ἰουνίαν : there is some doubt as to whether this name is masculine, Ἰουνίας or Ἰουνιᾶς , a contraction of Junianus, or feminine Junia. Junia is of course a common Roman name, and in that case the two would probably be husband and wife; Junias on the other hand is less usual as a man’ s name, but seems to represent a form of contraction common in this list, as Patrobas, Hermas, Olympas. If, as is probable, Andronicus and Junias are included among the Apostles (see below) then it is more probable that the name is masculine, although Chrysostom does not appear to consider the idea of a female apostle impossible: ‘ And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!’ τοὺςσυγγενεῖςμου . St. Paul almost certainly means by ‘ kinsmen,’ fellow-countrymen, and not relations. The word is used in this sense in 9:3, and it would be most improbable that there should be so many relations of St. Paul amongst the members of a distant Church (vv. 7, 11) and also in Macedonia (ver. 21); whereas it is specially significant and in accordance with the whole drift of the Epistle that he should specially mention as his kinsmen those members of a Gentile Church who were Jews. καὶσυναιχμαλώτουςμου . Probably to be taken literally. Although St. Paul had not so far suffered any long imprisonment, he had certainly often been imprisoned for a short time as at Philippi, 2 Corinthians 11:23 ἐνφυλακαῖςπερισσοτέρως ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. v ἑπτάκιςδεσμὰφορέσας . Nor is it necessary that the word should mean that Andronicus and Junias had suffered at the same time as St. Paul; he might quite well name them fellow-prisoners if they had like him been imprisoned for Christ’ s sake. Metaphorical explanations of the words are too far-fetched to be probable. οἵτινέςεἰσινἐπίσημοιἐντοῖςἀποστόλοις may mean either (1) well known to the Apostolic body, or (2) distinguished as Apostles. In favour of the latter interpretation, which is probably correct, are the following arguments. (i) The passage was apparently so taken by all patristic commentators. (ii) It is in accordance with the meaning of the words. ἐπίσημος , lit. ‘ stamped,’ ‘ marked,’ would be used of those who were selected from the Apostolic body as ‘ distinguished,’ not of those known to the Apostolic body, or looked upon by the Apostles as illustrious; it may be translated ‘ those of mark among the Apostles.’ (iii) It is in accordance with the wider use of the term ἀπόστολος . Bp. Lightfoot pointed out (Galatians, p. 93) that this word was clearly used both in a narrow sense of ‘ the twelve’ and also in a wider sense which would include many others. His views have been corroborated and strengthened by the publication of the Didache. The existence of these ‘ Apostles,’ itinerant Christian Evangelists, in Rome will suggest perhaps one of the methods by which the city had been evangelized. οἵκαὶπρὸἐμοῦγεγόνασινἐνΧριστῷ . Andronicus and Junias had been converted before St. Paul: they therefore belonged to the earliest days of the Christian community; perhaps even they were of those who during the dispersion after the death of Stephen began almost immediately to spread the word in Cyprus and Syria (Acts 11:19). As Dr. Weymouth points out (On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. 26) the perfect should here be translated ‘ were.’ ‘ It is utterly amazing,’ he writes, ‘ that in Romans 16:7 οἱκαὶπρὸἐμοῦγεγόνασινἐνΧρ . is rendered in the RV. “ who also have been in Christ before me.” The English idiom is here simply outraged. What officer in our Navy or Army would not stare at the βάρβαρος who should say of a senior officer, “ He has been in the Service before me” ? “ He was in the Navy before me” is the only correct English form. … The English mind fastens on the idea of time defined by “ before me,” and therefore uses the simple Past. … The Greek Perfect is correctly employed, because it is intended to convey, and does convey, the idea that they are still in Christ, while the English “ have been” suggests precisely the contrary.’ 8. Ἀμπλιᾶτος is the more correct reading for the abbreviated form Ἀμπλιᾶς which occurs in the TR. This is a common Roman slave name, and as such occurs in inscriptions of the imperial household. C.I.L. vi. 4899 ampliatvs | restitvto ∙ fratri | svo ∙ fecit ∙ merenti: 5154 C. vibivs ∙ firmvs ∙ C | vibio ∙ ampliato | patrono ∙ svo, &c., besides inscriptions quoted by Lft. But there is considerable evidence for connecting this name more closely with the Christian community in Rome. In the cemetery of Domitilla, now undoubtedly recognized as one of the earliest of Christian catacombs, is a chamber now known by the name of ‘ Ampliatus’ owing to an inscription which it contains. This chamber is very early: pre-Christian in character if not in origin. The cell over which the name of Ampliatus is inscribed is a later insertion, which, from the style of its ornament, is ascribed to the end of the first or beginning of the second century. The inscription is in bold, well-formed letters of the same date. Not far off is another inscription, not earlier than the end of the second century, to members of apparently the same family. The two inscriptions are ampliat[i] and avreliae ∙ bonifatiae | conivgi ∙ incomparabili | verae castitatis feminae | qvae ∙ vixit ∙ ann ∙ xxv ∙ M ∙ II | dieb ∙ IIII ∙ hor ∙ vi | avrel ∙ Ampliatvs cvm | gordiano ∙ filio. The boldness of the lettering in the first inscription is striking. The personal name without any other distinction suggests a slave. Why then should any one in these circumstances receive the honour of an elaborately painted tomb? The most plausible explanation is that he was for some reason very prominent in the earliest Roman Church. The later inscription clearly suggests that there was a Christian family bearing this name; and the connexion with Domitilla seems to show that here we have the name of a slave or freedman through whom Christianity had penetrated into a second great Roman household. See de Rossi, Bull. Arch. Christ. Ser. iii. vol. 6 (1881), pp. 57-74; Athenaeum March 4, 1884, p. 289; the inscription is just referred to by Light-foot, Clement. i. p. 39. 9. Οὐρβανός :a common Roman slave name found among members of the household, C.I.L. vi. 4237 (quoted by Lft. from Murat. 920. 1) vrbanvs ∙ lydes ∙ avg ∙ l ∙ dispens | inmvnis ∙ dat ∙ hermae ∙ fratri ∙ et | cilicae ∙ patri: cf. 5604, 5605, and others, quoted by Lft. (Grut. p. 589. 10, p. 1070. 1). τὸνσυνεργὸνἡμῶν . Where St. Paul is speaking of personal friends he uses the singular τὸνἀγαπητόνμου : here he uses the plural because Urbanus was a fellow-worker with all those who worked for Christ. Στάχυν : a rare Greek name, but found among members of the imperial household: C.I.L. vi. 8607 d. m. | m. vlpio ∙ avg ∙ l | eroti | ab ∙ epistvlis ∙ graecis | epaphroditvs | et ∙ stachys | caesar ∙ n ser | fratri ∙ karissimo ∙ et | clavdia ∙ formiana | fecervnt: cf. also inscriptions quoted by Lft. 10. Ἀπελλῆν . Again a name borne by members of the household and by Jews: amongst others by the famous tragic actor. See the instance quoted by Lft. and cf. Hor. Sat. I. v. 100 Credat Iudaeus Apella, non ego. τὸνδόκιμον : cf. 1 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 10:18; 2 Corinthians 13:7. One who has shown himself an approved Christian. τοὺςἐκτῶνἈριστοβούλου . The explanation of this name given by Lft. bears all the marks of probability. The younger Aristobulus was a grandson of Herod the Great, who apparently lived and died in Rome in a private station (Jos. Bell. Iud. II. xi. 6; Antiq. XX. i. 2); he was a friend and adherent of the Emperor Claudius. His household would naturally be οἱἈριστοβούλου , and would presumably contain a considerable number of Jews and other orientals, and consequently of Christians. If, as is probable, Aristobulus was himself dead by this time, his household would probably have become united with the imperial household. It would, however, have continued to bear his name, just as we find servants of Livia’ s household who had come from that of Maecenas called Maecenatiani (C. I. L. 6:4016, 4032), those from the household of Amyntas, Amyntiani (4035, cf. 8738): so also Agrippiani, Germaniciani. We might in the same way have Aristobuliani (cf. Lft. Phil. pp. 172,3). 11. Ἡρῳδίωνατὸνσυγγενῆμου . A mention of the household of Aristobulus is followed by a name which at once suggests the Herod family, and is specially stated to have been that of a Jew. This seems to corroborate the argument of the preceding note. τοὺςἐκτῶνΝαρκίσσου , ‘ the household of Narcissus,’ ‘ Narcissiani.’ The Narcissus in question was very possibly the well-known freedman of that name, who had been put to death by Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero some three or four years before (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 34). His slaves would then in all probability become the property of the Emperor, and would help to swell the imperial household. The name is common, especially among slaves and freedmen, cf. C.I.L. vi.4123 (in the household of Livia), 4346, 5206 heliconis narcissi | avgnstiani | : 22875 narcissvs ∙ avg ∙ lib. Lft. quotes also the two names Ti. Claudius Narcissus (see below), Ti. Iulius Narcissus from Muratori, and also the form Narcissianus, ti ∙ clavdio ∙ sp ∙ f ∙ narcissiano (Murat. p. 1150. 4). The following inscription belongs to a somewhat later date: C.I.L. vi. 9035 d. m. | t ∙ flavivs ∙ avg ∙ lib | narcissvs ∙ fecit ∙ sibi | et ∙ coeliae ∙ sp ∙ filiae | ieriae ∙ conivgi ∙ svae … , and lower down t flavivs ∙ avg ∙ lib ∙ firmvs ∙ narcissianvs | relator ∙ avctionvm ∙ monvmentvm ∙ refecit. See also 9035 a. (Lightfoot, Phil. p. 173.) Dr. Plumptre (Biblical Studies, p. 428) refers to the following interesting inscription. It may be found in C.I.L. v. 154* being reputed to have come from Ferrara. d. m. | clavdiae | dicaeosynae | ti ∙ clavdivs | narcissvs | lib. aeid. coiv | pientissimae | et frvgalissi | b. m. Tiberius Claudius suggests the first century, but the genuineness of the Ins. is not sufficiently attested. The editor of the fifth volume of the Corpus writes: Testimonia auctorum aut incertorum … aut fraudulentorum de loco cum parum defendant titulum cum exclusi, quamquam fieri potest ut sit genuinus nec multum corruptus. The name Dicaeosyne is curious but is found elsewhere C.I.L. iii. 2391; vi. 25866: x. 649. There is nothing distinctively Christian about it. 12. ΤρύφαινανκαὶΤρυφῶσαν are generally supposed to have been two sisters. Amongst inscriptions of the household we have 4866 d. m. | varia ∙ tryphosa | patrona ∙ et | m. eppivs ∙ clemens | : 5035 d. m. | tryphaena | valeria ∙ tryphaena | matri ∙ b ∙ m ∙ f ∙ et | valerius ∙ fvtianvs (quoted by Lft. from Acc. di Archeol. xi. p. 375): 5343 telesphorvs ∙ et ∙ tryphaena, 5774, 6054 and other inscriptions quoted by Lft. Attention is drawn to the contrast between the names which imply ‘ delicate,’ ‘ dainty,’ and their labours in the Lord. The name Tryphaena has some interest in the early history of the Church as being that of the queen who plays such a prominent part in the story of Paul and Thecla, and who is known to have been a real character. Περσίδα . The name appears as that of a freedwoman, C.I.L. vi. 23959 dis ∙ manib | per ∙ sidi. l. ved | vs ∙ mithres | vxori. It does not appear among the inscriptions of the household. 13. ʼ Ροῦφον : one of the commonest of slave names. This Rufus is commonly identified with the one mentioned in Mark 15:21, where Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus. St. Mark probably wrote at Rome, and he seems to speak of Rufus as some one well known. τὸνἐκλεκτὸνἐνΚυρίῳ . ‘ Elect’ is probably not here used in the technical sense ‘ chosen of God,’ — this would not be a feature to distinguish Rufus from any other Christian,— but it probably means ‘ eminent,’ ‘ distinguished for his special excellence,’ and the addition of ἐνΚυρίῳ means ‘ eminent as a Christian’ (2 John 1:1; 1 Peter 2:6). So in English phraseology the words ‘ a chosen vessel’ are used of all Christians generally, or to distinguish some one of marked excellence from his fellows. καὶτὴνμητέρααὐτοῦκαὶἐμοῦ . St. Paul means that she had showed him on some occasion all the care of a mother, and that therefore he felt for her all the affection of a son. 14. Ἀσύγκριτον : the following inscription is of a freedman of Augustus who bore this name, C.I.L. vi. 12565 d. m. | asyncreto | avg ∙ lib ∙ fecit ∙ fl | avia ∙ svccessa | patrono bene | merenti. The name Flavia suggests that it is somewhat later than St. Paul’ s time. φλέγοντα . The inscriptions seem to throw no light on this name. The most famous person bearing it was the historian of the second century who is referred to by Origen, and who gave some information concerning the Christians. Ἑρμῆν : one of the commonest of slave names, occurring constantly among members of the imperial household. Πατρόβαν . An abbreviated form of Patrobius. This name was borne by a well-known freedman of Nero, who was put to death by Galba (Tac. Hist. i. 49; ii. 95). Lft. quotes instances of other freedmen bearing it: ti ∙ cl ∙ avg ∙ l ∙ patrobivs (Grut. p. 610. 3), and ti ∙ clavdio ∙ patrobio (Murat. p. 1329). Ἑρμᾶς is likewise an abbreviation for various names, Hermagoras, Hermerus, Hermodorus, Hermogenes. It is common among slaves, but not so much so as Hermes. Some fathers and modern writers have identified this Hermas with the author of the ‘ Shepherd,’ an identification which is almost certainly wrong. καὶτοὺςσὺναὐτοῖςἀδελφούς . This and the similar expression in the next verse seem to imply that these persons formed a small Christian community by themselves. 15. φιλόλογος . A common slave name. Numerous instances are quoted from inscriptions of the imperial household: C.I.L. vi. 4116 dama ∙ liviae ∙ l ∙ cas … | phoebvs ∙ philologi | quoted by Lft. from Gorius, Mon. Liv. p. 168; he also quotes Murat. p. 1586. 3, p. 2043. 2; Grut. p. 630. 1. He is generally supposed to be the brother or the husband of Julia, in the latter case Nereus, his sister Nerias, and Olympas may be their children. Ἰουλίαν . Probably the commonest of all Roman female names, certainly the commonest among slaves in the imperial household. The following inscription is interesting: C.I.L. vi. 20416 d. m. | ivliae nerei ∙ f ∙ | clavdiae. The name Julia Tryphosa occurs 20715-7 in one case apparently in a Christian inscription. Νηρέα . This name is found in inscriptions of the imperial household, C. I. L. vi. 4344 nerevs ∙ nat ∙ german | pevcennvs ∙ germanici | anvs ∙ neronis ∙ caesaris. It is best known in the Roman Church in connexion with the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, the eunuch chamberlains of Domitilla (see Acta Sanctorum May. iii. p. 2; Texte und Untersuchungen, Band xi. Heft 2). These names were, however, older than that legend, as seems to be shown by the inscription of Damasus (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1874, p. 20 sq.; C. Ins. Christ. ii. p. 31) which represents them as soldiers. The origin of the legend was probably that in the catacomb of Domitilla and near to her tomb, appeared these two names very prominently; this became the groundwork for the later romance. An inscription of Achilleus has been found in the cemetery of Domitilla on a stone column with a corresponding column which may have borne the name of Nereus: both date from the fourth or fifth century (Bull. Arch. Christ. 1875, p. 8 sq.). These of course are later commemorations of earlier martyrs, and it may well be that the name of Nereus was in an early inscription (like that of Ampliatus above). In any case the name is one connected with the early history of the Roman Church; and the fact that Nereus is combined with Achilleus, a name which does not appear in the Romans, suggests that the origin of the legend was archaeological, and that it was not derived from this Epistle (Lightfoot, Clement. i. p. 51; Lipsius Apokr. Apgesch. ii. 106 ff.). Ὀλυμπᾶς : an abbreviated form like several in this list, apparently for Ὀλυμπιόδωρος . 16. ἐνφιλήματιἁγίῳ : so 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Peter 5:14 ἀσπάσασθεἀλλήλουςἐνφιλήματιἀγάπης . The earliest reference to the ‘ kiss of peace’ as a regular part of the Christian service is in Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65 ἀλλήλουςφιλήματιἀσπαζόμεθαπαυσάμενοιτῶνεὐχῶν . It is mentioned in Tert. de Orat. 14 (osculum pacis); Const. Apost. ii. 57. 12; viii. 5. 5; and it became a regular part of the Liturgy. Cf. Origen ad loc.: Ex hoc sermone, aliisque nonnullis similibus, mos ecclesiis traditus est, ut post orationes osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres. Hoc autem osculum sanctum appellat Apostolus. αἱἐκκλησίαιπᾶσαιτοῦΧριστοῦ : this phrase is unique in the N.T. Phrases used by St. Paul are αἱἐκκλησίαιτῶνἁγίων , ἡἐκκλησίατοῦθεοῦ , αἱἐκκλησίαιτοῦθεοῦ , ταῖςἐκκλησίαιςτῆςἸουδαίαςταῖςἐνΧριστῷ (Galatians 1:22), τῶνἐκκλησίωντουθεοῦτῶνοὐσῶνἐντῇἸουδαίᾳἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , and in Acts 20:28 we have the uncertain passage τὴνἐκκλησίαντοῦΚυρίου or τοῦΘεοῦ , where Θεός must, if the correct reading, be used of Χριστός . It is a habit of St. Paul to speak on behalf of the churches as a whole: cf. 16:4; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 8:18; 2 Corinthians 11:28; and Hort suggests that this unique phrase is used to express ‘ the way in which the Church of Rome was an object of love and respect to Jewish and Gentile Churches alike’ (Rom. and Eph. i. 52). WARNING AGAINST FALSE 16:17-20. Beware of those breeders of division and mischief-makers who pervert the Gospel which you were taught. Men such as these are devoted not to Christ but to their own unworthy aims. By their plausible and flattering speech they deceive the unwary. I give you this warning, because your loyalty is well known, and I would have you free from every taint of evil. God will speedily crush Satan beneath your feet. May the grace of Christ be with you. 17-20. A warning against evil teachers probably of a Jewish character. Commentators have felt that there is something unusual in a vehement outburst like this, coming at the end of an Epistle so completely destitute of direct controversy. But after all as Hort points out (Rom. and Eph. pp. 53-55) it is not unnatural. Against errors such as these St. Paul has throughout been warning his readers indirectly, he has been building up his hearers against them by laying down broad principles of life and conduct, and now just at the end, just before he finishes, he gives one definite and direct warning against false teachers. It was probably not against teachers actually in Rome, but against such as he knew of as existing in other churches which he had founded, whose advent to Rome he dreads. It has been suggested again that ‘ St. Paul finds it difficult to finish.’ There is a certain truth in that statement, but it is hardly one which ought to detain us long. When a writer has very much to say, when he is full of zeal and earnestness, there must be much which will break out from him, and may make his letters somewhat formless. To a thoughtful reader the suppressed emotion implied and the absence of regular method will really be proofs of authenticity. It may be noted that we find in the Epistle to the Philippians just the same characteristics: there also in 3:1, just apparently as he is going to finish the Epistle, the Apostle makes a digression against false teachers. 17. σκοπεῖν , ‘ to mark and avoid.’ The same word is used in Philippians 3:17 συμμιμηταίμουγίνεσθε , ἀδελφοί , καὶσκοπεῖτετοὺςοὕτωπεριπατοῦντας in exactly the opposite sense, ‘ to mark so as to follow.’ διχοστασίαι : cf. Galatians 5:20. Those divisions which are the result of the spirit of strife and rivalry and which eventually if persisted in lead to αἱρέσεις . The σκάνδαλα are the hindrances to Christian progress caused by these embittered relations. τὴνδιδαχήν , not ‘ Paulinism,’ but that common basis of Christian doctrine which St. Paul shared with all other teachers (1 Corinthians 15:1), and with which the teaching of the Judaizers was in his opinion inconsistent. ἐκκλίνατε : cf. Romans 3:11. The ordinary construction is with ἀπό and the genitive (a) of the cause avoided ἀπὸκακοῦ (1 Peter 3:11), or (b) of the person. 18. These false teachers are described as being self-interested in their motives, specious and deceptive in their manners. Cf. Philippians 3:19 ὦντὸτέλοςἀπώλεια , ὦνὁθεὸςἡκοιλία , καὶἡδόξαἐντῇαἰσχύνῃαὐτῶν , οἱτὰἐπίγειαφρονοῦντες . τῇἑαυτῶνκοιλίᾳ . These words do not in this case appear to mean that their habits are lax and epicurean, but that their motives are interested, and their conceptions and objects are inadequate. So Origen: Sed et quid causae sit, qua iurgia in ecclesiis suscitantur, et lites, divini Spiritus instinctu aperit. Ventris, inquit, gratia: hoc est, quaestus et cupiditatis. The meaning is the same probably in the somewhat parallel passages Philippians 3:17-21; Colossians 2:20-4. So Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 124) explains ταπεινοφροσύνη to mean ‘ a grovelling habit of mind, choosing lower things as the primary sphere of religion, and not τὰἄνω , the region in which Christ is seated at God’ s right hand.’ Χρηστολογίαςκαὶεὐλογίας , ‘ fair and flattering speech.’ In illustration of the first word all commentators quote Jul. Capitolinus, Pertinax 13 (in Hist. August): χρηστολόγον eum appellantes qui bene loqueretur et male faceret. The use of εὐλογία which generally means ‘ praise,’ ‘ laudation,’ or ‘ blessing’ (cp. 15:29), in a bad sense as here of ‘ flattering’ or ‘ specious’ language is rare. An instance is quoted in the dictionaries from Aesop. Fab. 229, p. 150, ed. Av. ἐὰνσὺεὐλογίαςεὐπορῇςἔγωγέσουοὐκήδομαι . 19. ἡγὰρὑμῶνὑπακοή . ‘ I exhort and warn you because your excellence and fidelity although they give me great cause for rejoicing increase my anxiety.’ These words seem definitely to imply that there were not as yet any dissensions or erroneous teaching in the Church. They are (as has been noticed) quite inconsistent with the supposed Ebionite character of the Church. When that theory was given up, all ground for holding these words spurious was taken away. θέλωδὲὑμᾶς . St. Paul wishes to give this warning without at the same time saying anything to injure their feelings. He gives it because he wishes them to be discreet and wary, and therefore blameless. In Matthew 10:16 the disciples are to be φρόνιμοι and ἀκέραιοι : see also Philippians 2:15. 20. ὁδὲΘεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης . See on 15:13. It is the ‘ God of peace’ who will thus overthrow Satan, because the effect of these divisions is to break up the peace of the Church. συντρίψει : ‘ will throw him under your feet, that you may trample upon him.’ τὸνΣατανᾶν . In 2 Corinthians 11:14 St. Paul writes ‘ for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.’ The ministers of Satan are looked upon as impersonating Satan himself, and therefore if the Church keeps at peace it will trample Satan and his wiles under foot. ἡχάριςκ .τ .λ . St. Paul closes this warning with a salutation as at the end of an Epistle. There is very considerable divergence in different authorities as to the benedictions which they insert in these concluding verses. (1) The TR. reads in ver. 20 ἡχάριςτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦ [Χριστοῦ ] μεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . This is supported by א A B C L P, &c., Vulg. &c., Orig.-lat. It is omitted by D E F G Sedul. (2) In ver. 24 it reads ἡχάριςτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸ . Χ . μετὰπάντωνὑμῶν . ὰμήν . This is omitted by א A B C, Vulg. codd. (am. fuld. harl.) Boh. Aeth. Orig.-lat. It is inserted by D E F G L;, &c., Vulg. Harcl. Chrys. &c. Of these F G L omit vv. 25-27, and therefore make these words the end of the Epistle. (3) A third and smaller group puts these words at the end of ver. 27: P. 17, 80, Pesh. Arm. Ambrstr. Analyzing these readings we find: א A B C, Orig.-lat. have a benediction at ver. 21 only. D E F G have one at ver. 24 only. L, Vulg. clem., Chrys., and the mass of later authorities have it in both places. P has it at ver. 21, and after ver. 27. The correct text clearly has a benediction at ver. 21 and there only; it was afterwards moved to a place after ver. 24, which was very probably in some MSS. the end of the Epistle, and in later MSS., by a natural conflation, appears in both. See the Introduction, § 9. OF ST. PAUL’ S 16:21-23. All my companions— Timothy, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater— greet you. I Tertius, the amanuensis, also give you Christian greeting. So too do Gaius, and Erastus, treasurer of Corinth, and Quartus. 21-23. These three verses form a sort of postscript, added after the conclusion of the letter and containing the names of St. Paul’ s companions. 21. Τιμόθεος had been with St. Paul in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 1:1): of his movements since then we have no knowledge. The μον with συνεργός is omitted by B. Λούκιος might be the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned Acts 13:1. Ἰάσων is probably the one mentioned in Acts 17:5-7, Acts 17:9 as St. Paul’ s host, and Σωσίπατρος may be the same as the Σώπατρος of Acts 20:4, who was a native of Berea. If these identifications are correct, two of these three names are connected with Macedonia, and this connexion is by no means improbable. They had attached themselves to St. Paul as his regular companions, or come to visit him from Thessalonica. In any case they were Jews (οἱσυγγενεῖςμου cf. ver. 7). It was natural that St. Paul should ledge with a fellow-countryman. 22. ὁγράψας . St. Paul seems generally to have employed an amanuensis, see 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17, and cf. Galatians 6:11 ἴδετεπηλίκοιςὑμῖνγράμμασινἔγραψατῇἐμῇχειρί . 23. Γάϊος who is described as the host of St. Paul and of the whole Church is possibly the Gaius of 1 Corinthians 1:14. In all probability the Christian assembly met in his house. Erastus (cf. 2 Timothy 4:20) who held the important office of οἰκόνομοςτῆςπόλεως , ‘ the city treasurer,’ is presumably mentioned as the most influential member of the community. THE 16:25-27. And now let me give praise to God, who can make you firm believers, duly trained and established according to the Gospel that I proclaim, the preaching which announces Jesus the Messiah; that preaching in which God’ s eternal purpose, the mystery of his working, kept silent since the world began, has been revealed, a purpose which the Prophets of old foretold, which has been preached now by God’ s express command, which announces to all the Gentiles the message of obedience in faith: to God, I say, to Him who is alone wise, be the glory for ever through Jesus Messiah. Amen. 25-27. The Epistle concludes in a manner unusual in St. Paul with a doxology or ascription of praise, in which incidentally all the great thoughts of the Epistle are summed up. Although doxologies are not uncommon in these Epistles (Galatians 1:5; Romans 11:36), they are not usually so long or so heavily weighted; but Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17 offer quite sufficient parallels; the two former at a not much later date. Ascriptions of praise at the conclusion of other Epp. are common, Hebrews 13:20, Hebrews 13:21; Jude 1:24, Jude 1:25; Clem. Rom. § lxv; Mart. Polyc. 20. The various questions bearing on the genuineness of these verses and their positions in different MSS., have been sufficiently discussed in the Introduction, § 9. Here they are commented upon as a genuine and original conclusion to the Epistle exactly harmonizing with its contents. The commentary is mainly based on the paper by Hort published in Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 321 ff. 25. τῷδὲδυναμένῳὑμᾶ · στηρίξαι : cf. Romans 14:4 στήκειἢπίπτει · σταθήσεταιδέ · δυνατεῖγὰρὁΚύριοςστῆσαιαὐτόν . A more exact parallel is furnished by Ephesians 3:20 τῷδὲδυναμένῳ … ποιῆσαι … αὐτῷἡδόξα . στηρίζω is confined in St. Paul to the earlier Epistles (Romans 1:11; and Thess.). δύναμαι , δυνατός , δυνατέω of God, with an infinitive, are common in this group. We are at once reminded that in i. ii St. Paul had stated that one of the purposes of his contemplated visit was to confer on them some spiritual gift that they might be established. κατὰτὸεὐαγγέλιόνμου : Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 2:8; cf. also Romans 11:28 κατὰτὸεὐαγγέλιον . One salient feature of the Epistle is at once alluded to, that special Gospel of St. Paul which he desired to explain, and which is the main motive of this Epistle. St. Paul did not look upon this as antagonistic to the common faith of the Church, but as complementary to and explanatory of it. To expound this would especially lead to the ‘ establishment’ of a Christian Church, for if rightly understood, it would promote the harmony of Jew and Gentile within it. καὶτὸκήρυγμαἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . The words κήρυγμα , κηρύσσειν occur throughout St. Paul’ s Epp., but more especially in this second group. (Romans 10:8; 1 Corinthians 1:21, 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 2 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 2:2, &c.) The genitive is clearly objective, the preaching ‘ about Christ’ ; and the thought of St. Paul is most clearly indicated in Romans 10:8-12, which seems to be here summed up. St. Paul’ s life was one of preaching. The object of his preaching was faith in Jesus the Messiah, and that name implies the two great aspects of the message, on the one hand salvation through faith in Him, on the other as a necessary consequence the universality of that salvation. The reference is clearly to just the thoughts which run through this Epistle, and which marked the period of the Judaistic controversies. κατὰἀποκάλυψινμυστηρίουκ .τ .λ . Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 2:10 σοφίανδελαλοῦμενἐντοῖςτελείοις … Θεοῦσοφίανἐνμυστηρίῳ , τὴνἀποκεκρυμμένην , ἢνπροώρισενὁΘεὸςπρὸτῶναἰώνων … ἡμῖνδὲἀπεκάλυψενὁΘεὸςδιὰτοῦΠνεύματος . Ephesians 3:3, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 3:6; Titus 1:2, Titus 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Timothy 1:10, and for separate phrases, Romans 1:16; Romans 3:21; Romans 11:25. This is the thought which underlies much of the argument of chaps. ix-xi, and is indirectly implied in the first eight chapters. It represents in fact, the conclusion which the Apostle has arrived at in musing over the difficulties which the problems of human history as he knew them had suggested. God who rules over all the aeons or periods in time, which have passed and which are to come, is working out an eternal purpose in the world. For ages it was a mystery, now in these last days it has been revealed: and this revelation explains the meaning of God’ s working in the past. The thought then forms a transition from the point of view of the Romans to that of the Ephesians. It is not unknown in the Epp. of the second group, as the quotation from Corinthians shows; but there it represents rather the conclusion which is being arrived at by the Apostle, while in the Epp. of the Captivity it is assumed as already proved, and as the basis on which the idea of the Church is developed. The end of the Epistle to the Romans is the first place where we should expect this thought in a doxology, and coming there, it exactly brings out the force and purpose of the previous discussion. The passage κατὰἀποκάλυψιν down to γνωρισθέντος goes not with στηρίξαι but with κήρυγμα . The preaching of Christ was the revelation of the ‘ mystery which had been hidden,’ and explained God’ s purpose in the world. 26. In this verse we should certainly read διάτεγραφῶνπροφητικῶν . The only Greek MSS. that omit τε are DE, and the authority of versions can hardly be quoted against it. Moreover, the sentence is much simpler if it be inserted. It couples together φανερωθέντος and γνωρισθέντος , and all the words from διάτεγραφῶν to the latter word should be taken together. εἰςπάντατὰἔθνη probably goes with εἰςὑπακοὴνπίστεως and not with γνωρισθέντος . διάτεγραφῶνπροφητικῶν … γνωρισθέντος . All the ideas in this sentence are exactly in accordance with the thoughts which run through this Epistle. The unity of the Old and New Testaments, the fact that Christ had come in accordance with the Scriptures (Romans 1:1, Romans 1:2), that the new method of salvation although apart from law, was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets (μαρτυρουμένηὑπὸτοῦνόμουκαὶτῶνπροφητῶν Romans 3:21), the constant allusion esp. in chaps. ix-xi to the Old Testament Scriptures; all these are summed up in the phrase διὰγραφῶνπροφητικῶν . The same is true of the idea expressed by κατ ʼ ἐπιταγὴντοῦαἰωνίουΘεοῦ . The mission given to the preachers of the Gospel is brought out generally in Romans 10:15 ff., the special command to the Apostle is dwelt on in the opening vv. 1-5, and the sense of commission is a constant thought of this period. With regard to the words, αἰωνίου is of course suggested by χρόνοιςαἰωνίοις : cp. Baruch 4:8, Susanna (Theod.) 42 (LXX) 35. The formula κατ ʼ ἐπιταγήν occurs 1 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Corinthians 8:8, but with quite a different meaning; in the sense of this passage it comes again in 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:3. We find the phrase εἰςὑπακοὴνπίστεως in Romans 1:5. As Hort points out, the enlarged sense of ὑπακοή and ὑπακούω is confined to the earlier Epistles. The last phrase εἰςπάντατὰἔθνηγνωρισθέντος hardly requires illustrating; it is a commonplace of the Epistle. In this passage still carrying on the explanation of κήρυγμα , four main ideas of the Apostolic preaching are touched upon— the continuity of the Gospel, the Apostolic commission, salvation through faith, the preaching to the Gentiles. μόνῳσοφῷΘεῷ : a somewhat similar expression may be found in 1 Timothy 1:17, which at a later date was assimilated to this, σοφῷ being inserted. But the idea again sums up another line of thought in the Epistle— God is one, therefore He is God of both Jews and Greeks; the Gospel is one (3:29, 30). God is infinitely wise (ὦβάθοςπλούτουκαὶσοφίαςκαὶγνώσεωςΘεοῦ 11:33); even when we cannot follow His tracks, He is leading and guiding us, and the end will prove the depths of His wisdom. 27. ᾧἡδόξακ .τ .λ . The reading here is very difficult. 1. It would be easy and simple if following the authority of B. 33. 72, Pesh., Orig.-lat. we could omit ᾧ , or if we could read αὐτῷ with P. 31, 54 (Boh. cannot be quoted in favour of this reading; Wilkins’ translation which Tisch. follows is wrong). But both these look very much like corrections, and it is difficult to see how ᾧ came to be inserted if it was not part of the original text. Nor is it inexplicable. The Apostle’ s mind is so full of the thoughts of the Epistle that they come crowding out, and have produced the heavily loaded phrases of the doxology; the structure of the sentence is thus lost, and he concludes with a well-known formula of praise ᾧἡδόξακ .τ .λ . (Galatians 1:15; 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21). 2. If the involved construction were the only difficulty caused by reading ᾧ , it would probably be right to retain it. But there are others more serious. How are the words διὰἸ . Χ . to be taken? and what does ᾧ refer to? (1) Grammatically the simplest solution is to suppose, with Lid., that ᾧ refers to Christ, and that St. Paul has changed the construction owing to the words διὰἸ . Χ . He had intended to finish ‘ to the only wise God through Christ Jesus be Glory,’ as in Jude 1:25 μόνῳΘεῷσωτῆριἡμῶν , διὰἸ . Χ . τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν , δόξα , μεγαλωσύνη , κ .τ .λ ., but the words ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ remind him that it is through the work of Christ that all this scheme has been developed; he therefore ascribes to Him the glory. This is the only possible construction if ᾧ be read, but it can hardly be correct; and that not because we can assert that on a priori grounds a doxology cannot be addressed to the Son, but because such a doxology would not be in place here. The whole purpose of these concluding verses is an ascription of praise to Him who is the only wise God. (2) For this reason most commentators attempt to refer the ᾧ to Θεῷ . This in itself is not difficult: it resembles what is the probable construction in 1 Peter 4:11, and perhaps in Hebrews 13:21. But then διὰἸ . Χ . becomes very difficult. To take it with σοφῷ would be impossible, and to transfer it into the relative clause would be insufferably harsh. There is no doubt therefore that it is by far the easiest course to omit ᾧ . We have however the alternative of supposing that it is a blunder made by St. Paul’ s secretary in the original letter. We have seen that some such hypothesis may explain the impossible reading in 4:12. εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας should be read with B C L, Harcl., Chrys. Cyr. Theodrt. τῶναἰώνων was added in א A D E P, Vulg. Pesh. Boh., Orig.-lat. &c., owing to the influence of 1 Timothy 1:17. The doxology sums up all the great ideas of the Epistle. The power of the Gospel which St. Paul was commissioned to preach; the revelation in it of the eternal purpose of God; its contents, faith; its sphere, all the nations of the earth; its author, the one wise God, whose wisdom is thus vindicated— all these thoughts had been continually dwelt on. And so at the end feeling how unfit a conclusion would be the jarring note of vv. 17-20, and wishing to ‘ restore to the Epistle at its close its former serene loftiness,’ the Apostle adds these verses, writing them perhaps with his own hand in those large bold letters which seem to have formed a sort of authentication of his Epistles (Galatians 6:11), and thus gives an eloquent conclusion to his great argument. &c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows: C.I.G. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. א Ԡ Cod. Sinaiticus B Cod. Vaticanus P Cod. Porphyrianus Boh. Bohairic. A Cod. Alexandrinus C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus D Cod. Claromontanus E Cod. Sangermanensis F Cod. Augiensis G Cod. Boernerianus Vulg. Vulgate. Syrr. Syriac. C.I.L. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Arm. Armenian. Aeth. Ethiopic. Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen L Cod. Angelicus Chrys. Chrysostom. Theodrt. Theodoret. RV. Revised Version. Lft. Lightfoot. Jos. Josephus. Tert. Tertullian. Sedul. Sedulius. codd. codices. Harcl. Harclean. Pesh. Peshitto. Tisch. Tischendorf. Lid. Liddon.